ORDER V.G. Oak, C.J. - This criminal revision arises out of a case of loss of cattle. Two bullocks belonging to Azimuddin were lost from his compound in village Nagla Rai, district Muzaffarnagar. He started a search for the bullocks. Next Cay Gulab and Yasin accused approached Azimuddin and told him that he could get back his bullocks, provided he was prepared to spend some money. The complainant accepted the proposal. At 3 P.M. the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 400/- to the two accused persons. The accused asked the complainant to come for the bullocks at about 3 A.M. Accordingly, the two accused delivered the two missing bullocks to Azimuddin at 3 A.M. A report was lodged at the police station. The two accused were prosecuted Under Sections 380, IPC and 215, IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. They were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Kairana Under Sections 380, IPC and 215, IPC. u/s 380, IPC each accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Each accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 250/- or further rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of fine u/s 215, IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar upheld the conviction and sentences u/s 215, IPC. Conviction u/s 380, IPC was altered to conviction u/s 411, IPC. u/s 411, IPC each accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months. In other respects, the appeal was dismissed. Yasin and Gulab have, therefore, come to this Court in revision. 2. Mr. G.C. Dwivedi appearing for the Applicants urged that, on the findings recorded by the learned Sessions judge the accused could not have been convicted. During the course of his judgment the learned Sessions Judge observed: Under the circumstances of the case, it would not be safe to raise presumption u/s 114, Indian Evidence Act regarding the accused persons having committed theft in respect of bullocks in question. On that footing the accused were not convicted u/s 380, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge recorded a conviction u/s 411, IPC. Mr. G.C. Dwivedi contended that since the accused have not been found guilty of theft, they could not be convicted either u/s 411, IPC or u/s 215, IPC. 3. Section 411, IPC provides for punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property. The learned Sessions Judge recorded a conviction u/s 411, IPC. Mr. G.C. Dwivedi contended that since the accused have not been found guilty of theft, they could not be convicted either u/s 411, IPC or u/s 215, IPC. 3. Section 411, IPC provides for punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property. "Stolen property" has been defined in Section 410, IPC: Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as 'stolen property'.... It will be seen that the scope of stolen property is wider than theft. There may be a case of stolen property, although no offence of theft has been committed. Property shall be designated as stolen property even where the principal offence is criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. In the instant case there is no question of criminal breach of trust. We may, therefore, enquire whether there was any offence of criminal misappropriation. 4. Section 403, IPC provides punishment for the offence of criminal misappropriation. Section 403, IPC states: Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished.... The term "dishonestly" has been defined in Section 24, IPC: Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'. 5. The conduct of the accused persons indicates that the missing bullocks were in the custody of the accused between the time of the conversation between the parties on 31-5-1967 and the recovery at night at 3 A.M. Instead of returning the bullocks to the complainant immediately, the accused demanded a price for returning the bullocks. This act was dishonest. Law prohibits the charging of any such commission for returning lost property. It is obvious that the bullocks were in the custody of the accused at least for 12 hours before the property was returned to the complainant. The accused converted the bullocks to their own use at least temporarily. The offence punishable u/s 403, IPC appears to have been committed with respect to the two bullocks. The bullocks may, therefore, be designated as "stolen property". 6. The accused retained the stolen property with them at least for 12 hours knowing that the animals constituted stolen property. The accused converted the bullocks to their own use at least temporarily. The offence punishable u/s 403, IPC appears to have been committed with respect to the two bullocks. The bullocks may, therefore, be designated as "stolen property". 6. The accused retained the stolen property with them at least for 12 hours knowing that the animals constituted stolen property. The two Applicants were, therefore, rightly convicted u/s 411, IPC. Section 215, IPC states: Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any moveable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall...be punished... 7. In the present case the two bullocks were the subject-matter of the offences punishable Under Sections 403, IPC and 411, IPC. The accused agreed to return the bullocks for a price. The act of the accused was punishable u/s 215, IPC. 8. In Emperor v. Muhammada 3 CrLJ 299 the accused was found riding on a mare which had strayed away from the possession of its owner. The accused was convicted u/s 403, IPC. It was held by the Chief Court of Punjab that conviction was illegal, for it could not be assumed that the intention of the accused was dishonest. In the present case we have seen that the accused acted dishonestly in demanding a price for the return of the missing bullocks. 9. In Queen v. Abdool 1868 WR 23 the accused found a thing and merely retained it in his possession. It was held that he could not be convicted u/s 403, IPC for criminal misappropriation. We have seen that in the present case not only the accused retained the bullocks in their possession, but they proceeded to recover money from the complainant for returning the animals. 10. In Sahadat Ali v. The State 1967 Cri LJ 349 it was held by Assam High Court that in a prosecution u/s 411, IPC the prosecution must establish that the accused received certain property knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen property. In the present case Azimuddin complainant and Yasin accused belong to the same village Nagla Rai. The accused knew that Azimuddin's bullocks were missing. The accused negotiated for returning the bullocks for a price. These circumstances indicate that the accused was fully aware of the nature of the property. 11. In the present case Azimuddin complainant and Yasin accused belong to the same village Nagla Rai. The accused knew that Azimuddin's bullocks were missing. The accused negotiated for returning the bullocks for a price. These circumstances indicate that the accused was fully aware of the nature of the property. 11. In Phul Chand Dube Vs. Emperor, AIR 1929 All 917 facts were similar to the facts of the present case. It was held that although the accused could not be convicted u/s 411, IPC, the accused could be convicted u/s 403, IPC. Conviction was altered accordingly. The learned Judge discussed whether the property in question was "stolen property" as defined in Section 410, IPC. It was observed that none of the elements mentioned in Section 410, IPC applied in that case. Yet the accused was convicted u/s 403, IPC. If the matter fell u/s 403, IPC, there should have been no difficulty in bringing the case u/s 410, IPC also. 12. As discussed above, the Applicants' convictions u/s 411, IPC and Section 215, IPC are proper. Substantial sentences should be awarded in cases relating to retention of missing cattle. The sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge are not unduly severe. 13. The revision is dismissed. The Applicants should surrender to bail and serve out their sentences.