JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal was filed with the special leave of the Court under section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure against the acquittal of the respondent in a case under sections 381 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was the General Secretary of a public limited company called E. M. C. The respondent was the Stenographer and P. A. to Shri Om Khosla, Director of the company. He resigned from his employment on August 15, 1960. The prosecution case is that sometime in the last week of September 1960, the accused approached the complainant -the present appellant - for some financial, accommodation and as this was refused he threatened that he had in his possession certain papers which would harm the company and its directors. 2. IN the first week of October following, the accused is stated to have approached one Shri Ramesh Sehgal, manager of Arora and Sehgal (P) Ltd., a constituent company of E. M. C., and demanded from him Rs. 3,000/- failing which he threatened disclosure of certain malpractices in the dealings between Arora and Sehgal (P) Limited and E. M. C. These demands altered the authorities of E. M. C. Searches were made in the office and certain important papers were found missing. A complaint was lodged against the accused alleging attempted extortion and thereafter the present prosecution was initiated on allegations that the accused had either committed theft from the office of E. M. C. of certain important documents or that he had dishonestly received and retained the same. 3. THE defence was a denial of the allegations. That the papers concerned belong to E. M. C. was not denied. It was stated that the accused had received these papers at Delhi from d. W. 2 and that he had received them with the object of disclosing the malpractices of E. M. C. Company and of bringing the offending officers of the company to book. 4. THE learned magistrate found virtually on the evidence of D. W. 2 that theft of the documents concerned had not been proved, the intention at the back of the removal not being to cause wrongful gain or wrongful lass but to put pressure on the authorities of the company in the matter of recognition of the Union of the workers which was being refused. Such being the intention, according to the learned magistrate, no theft in law could have been committed in respect of the documents concerned. So far as the reception and retention of the documents by the accused in the case is concerned, the finding of the learned magistrate is that, as the accused was actuated by the intention of putting the law on the erring officers of the company and not by an intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain, there was no dishonesty in the matter of such retention or reception. It is on these two findings that the learned magistrate held that no offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code had been established. On this finding followed the order of acquittal the propriety whereof is being challenged in this appeal. Mr. Dutta appearing in support of the appeal contended that the learned magistrate fell into an error in finding that the intention of coercing the company to recognize the union or the intention to put the law on the officers of the company would not constitute dishonesty as contemplated in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code. He argued that the learned magistrate in coming to his finding completely misappreciated sections 24 and 23 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention which is based on the correct interpretation of sections 24 and 23 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dutta referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court in (1) Queen Empress v. Sri Churn Chungo, ILR 22 Cal. 1017 (FB), and a Supreme Court decision in (2) Krishna Kumar v. Union of Undid, 1950 Cr. L. J. 1508. 5. MR. Banerjee appearing for the respondent argued that if the intention be found to be not to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain but in the case of an allegation of theft to coerce the company into a course of action and in the case of an alleged offence u s. 411 or an offence under section 411 of the of the I. P. Code, to put the law in motion against the offender, there could be no dishonesty and, without the element of dishonesty, no offence of theft or an offence under section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. 6. THE findings of the learned magistrate in the case arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record are as follows : (1) Certain documents which comprise the subject-matter of the prosecution did belong to E. M. C. ; (2) the documents were removed by somebody from the possession of the company and were made over to D. W. 2, the Secretary of the Labour Union of the Workers of the Company who again wanted to use them as a lever to put pressure on the company for recognising the union; (3) the intention of D. W. 2 or of those others who had actually removed the papers was not dishonest; (4) D. W. 2 handed over the documents to the accused ; (5) the accused received and retained those documents with the intent to put the law on the officers of the company for their malpractices which the documents would disclose ; and (6) the intention actuating the accused was not dishonest. It would appear from the above that, according to the learned magistrate, removal of the documents was not dishonest, as the intention of the remover was not to make any gain out of the documents but to use them to put pressure on the company. According to him, further, the reception and retention of the documents by the accused was also not dishonest, as his intention was to put the law on the erring officers of the company. 7. AS 'dishonesty' is the element which would attract criminality to the removal, reception or retention, no offence of theft could have been committed by the person removing the documents and, naturally no offence of receiving or retaining stolen property could have been committed by the accused, according to the reasoning of the learned magistrate. Even if the documents might be assumed to have been stolen, no offence, according to the learned magistrate, could be attributed to the accused under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. THE crux of the matter involved turns round the term 'dishonesty' in section 378 and in section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Mr. Banerjee, the intention behind the Act of removal, reception or retention is the key to the interpretation of the term. Mr. 8. THE crux of the matter involved turns round the term 'dishonesty' in section 378 and in section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Mr. Banerjee, the intention behind the Act of removal, reception or retention is the key to the interpretation of the term. Mr. Dutta while accepting the proposition would go a step further and argue that the intention contemplated in the definition of the term "dishonestly' in section 24 of the Indian penal Code is not an intention to make a personal gain out of the subject-matter of the property concerned but an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss as defined in section 23 of the Indian Penal Code. Let us now consider the cases referred to on behalf of the parties, Mr. Banerjee in support of his argument has referred to the case (3) Hata v. Emperor, (1943) 44 Cr. L. J. 186. It was held in that case that, if a person of his own accord hands over stolen property to the police in order to assist them in investigation, it cannot be said that he was the receiver of stolen property in the criminal sense. If he had a guilty conscience, he must have done so under some pressure or inducement, and as such inducement or pressure must have been within the knowledge of the prosecution, if the true state of facts is not disclosed, it becomes impossible for the court to arrive at the truth. It was held that as the accused concerned had voluntarily handed over a stolen property to the police, no dishonesty could be imputed to the reception or retention of that property by him. 9. THE facts of the case are not clear from the judgment. But it appears that the accused had produced some stolen property from his house before the police. It does not appear if the accused knew the property to be stolen property, nor does the judgment indicate how or how long before the theft he had come by that property, nor is it possible from the report to find the intention behind the retention of the property. 10. THE next case referred to by Mr. Banerjee is (4) Chima v. Emperor, (1914) 15 Cr. L. J. 522. It was held in that case section 23 of the Indian Penal code does not cover a case! 10. THE next case referred to by Mr. Banerjee is (4) Chima v. Emperor, (1914) 15 Cr. L. J. 522. It was held in that case section 23 of the Indian Penal code does not cover a case! of wrongful gain or wrongful loss when a person takes a Birth Register from the possession of the Chaukidar to produce in court for proving a certain entry therein. The intention, it was found, was not to make a wrongful gain or to cause a wrongful loss in that case. This case, where it was found that the intention was not dishonest in law, does not help Mr. Banerjee in any way. In Sri Churn Chungo's case, (supra), referred to by Mr. Dutta a creditor removing cattle from the possession of the debtor with intent to coerce him to pay his debt was held to be guilty of theft. It was observed in this connection as follows : "the intention of the legislature in enacting section 23 of the Indian penal Code was that it should be a theft under the Code to take goods in order to keep the person entitled to the possession of them out of possession of them for a time although the taker did not intend to appropriate them himself or to entirely deprive the owner of them." 'wrongful gain', it was held, is constituted net only by wrongful acquisition of property but also by wrongful retention of the same, even though such a retention does not result in any profit to the person retaining it 'wrongful loss' is constituted, according to this decision, not only be wrongful deprivation of property but also by wrongfully keeping the owner out of the same. 11. THE same interpretation of the term 'dishonestly' was accepted in Krishan Kumar's case, (supra). In interpreting the term as it appears in section 5 (1) (c)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it was observed: "wrongful gain includes wrongful detention and wrongful loss includes being kept out of the property as well as being wrongfully deprived of property." 12. IN the present case, the documents removed were so removed, on the most charitable view of the evidance, in order to coerce the company to a certain course of action and the question is whether such removal was dishonest. Under section 178 of the indian Penal Code, removal must be dishonest in order to constitute theft. IN the present case, the documents removed were so removed, on the most charitable view of the evidance, in order to coerce the company to a certain course of action and the question is whether such removal was dishonest. Under section 178 of the indian Penal Code, removal must be dishonest in order to constitute theft. Under section 24 of the Indian penal Code, the term 'dishonestly' means doing something with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, 13. UNDER section 23 of the Indian penal Code, 'wrongful gain' is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled and 'wrongful loss' is the loss by unlawful mears of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. Under this section, 'wrongful gain' includes wrongful acquisition as well as wrongful retention and 'wrongful loss' includes wrongful deprivation of property as well as wrongfully being kept out of property. 14. IN the case of Hata v. Emperor, referred to by Mr. Banerjee, the facts are not at all clear to enable me to find out what the intention might have been behind the retention of the property. In Chima v. Emperor, there was wrongful loss caused to the Chaukidar but the finding was that there was no intention to cause such wrongful loss. In Sri Churn Chungo's case, (supra), there was both wrongful loss and wrongful gain and there was also an intention to coerce payment. But that was a remote intention. The immediate intention was to keep the debtor out of possession of the cattle and the motive in the matter was that such deprivation will induce him to pay the debt. This remote intention or motive is not the intention contemplated in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code which is concerned with the immediate intention. This would be evident from the interpretation of the term as given in this case as well as in the supreme Court decision referred to by Mr. Dutta, 15. IN this case, the documents had been removed by somebody from the possession of the company. The intention certainly was to keep the company out of possession of those documents and the remote intention was to use the documents as a lever to put pressure on the company. Dutta, 15. IN this case, the documents had been removed by somebody from the possession of the company. The intention certainly was to keep the company out of possession of those documents and the remote intention was to use the documents as a lever to put pressure on the company. It not necesary in order to constitute wrongful gain or wrongful loss that there must be an intention to utilise the property concerned for the purpose of personal gain. If the company was entitled to possession of the property and if the company was kept out of possession of the property and if the intention behind the removal was to keep the company out of possession of the property, that was an intention to cause wrongful loss. In my view, the learned magistrate was wholly wrong in coming to the conclusion that as the object behind the removal of the documents was to put pressure on the company, no offence of theft could have been constituted thereby. 16. THE accused having received and retained those documents must accordingly be held to have received and retained stolen property. A question again crops up whether such reception and retention were dishonest. There is no clear evidence as to when the documents were removed from the possession of the company. But exhibits B and C indicate that accused had received them sometime before the end of October 1960 and had retained them in las possession till December 1, 1960. The documents were such and the manner in which, on the defence evidence itself (D. W. 2), it came into possession of the accused would clearly indicate that the accused could have had no reason to believe that these were innocently come by. He must have known that these were stolen property. It is his intention in the matter of receiving and retaining them which has to be considered. Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the statutory recognition of a citizen's public duty in the matter of giving information to the police about certain offences. The offence of which E. M. C. or its officers might be involved as a result of the transactions disclosed in the documents is not one of the offences mentioned in section 44 above. The accused had thus no statutory duty of informing the police of the offence. The offence of which E. M. C. or its officers might be involved as a result of the transactions disclosed in the documents is not one of the offences mentioned in section 44 above. The accused had thus no statutory duty of informing the police of the offence. It might very well be argued that, even though he might not have a statutory obligation in that regard as he had really approached the police with the intention of putting the law on the offenders, there would not be the intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain in the matter, and an without that intention there could be no dishonesty, naturally there could be no offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code committed by him in the case. If really the intention at the back of the reception and retention of the documents concerned had really been to put the law in motion against the officers of E. M. C., I would not attribute dishonesty to such reception or retention. 17. EXT. C is an undated letter written by the accused to the Chairman of the central Water and Power Commission, new Delhi, alleging that he was prepared to establish that the E. M. C. had collected several lakhs of rupees from their customers, that is State Electricity Boards, Hydro-Electric Projects, etc., by way of price variation claims supported by manipulated documents. He had also other malpractices of the company to disclose and he asked for an appointment with the Chairman. Exhibit B is the Chairman's reply to the letter telling him that it was not for him to take any action in the matter and asking him to report the case to the police or to the Project authorities defrauded. The evidence does not show that the accused promptly acted on this suggestion. The evidence is that it was on December 1, 1960, that he handed over the papers to the police. 18. FROM the above, it would not appear that the intention of the accused in the matter of reception and retention of documents was to put the law on the company. With what motive he had approached the Chairman of the Central Water and Power Commission does not appear from the materials on record. It may be that he had approached this authority with the object of hitting the company financially. With what motive he had approached the Chairman of the Central Water and Power Commission does not appear from the materials on record. It may be that he had approached this authority with the object of hitting the company financially. He was asked to approach the police. If he had done so immediately, I could have understood. There is nothing to indicate his intention in the matter of retention of the documents for about a month after receipt of the Chairman's letter. The immediate intention in the matter of the reception and retention of the documents was certainly to cause wrongful loss to the company. The motive might have been something else. But motive is only a remote intention and that is not relevant for the purpose. As stated above, it is not necessary that the person receiving or retaining stolen property should expect some personal benefit out of the same. As expectation of any such benefit is not a relevant consideration. The learned magistrate apparently fell into an error in finding that when the object at the back of the action of the accused was to put the law in motion, as is evident from the evidence of P. W. 1, no dishonesty could be imputed to the reception or retention of the documents by him. On facts I cannot agree with this finding. On a consideration of the materials on record, I find that an intention to cause wrongful loss by keeping the E. M. C. the owner, out of possession of the documents has been well established in the case and that the accused should have been convicted under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 19. THE appeal is, accordingly, allowed. I find the accused respondent guilty under section 411 of the Indian penal Code and I convict him thereunder and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.