JUDGMENT : KAMLESHWAR NATH, J. 1. This revision u/s 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order of acquittal, dated 26-9-1980, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, in a case u/s 379 IPC. 2. Applicant Chiranjee Narain Singh had filed a civil suit on 10-2-1976 against opposite parties Behari Dhutal, Dubar, Ramoo and Jokhu, in which a competent civil court had restrained the latter from interfering with his possession over plot Nos. 75 and 76, situated in village Manjhe Rampur Puwari, district Faizabad, and from cutting pea crop standing thereon. A temporary injunction to restrain the opposite parties from causing any kind of damage to or from cutting the crops was Issued and the applicant was required to furnish security to compensate the opposite parties at the rate of Rs. 1300/- per crop in case of dismissal of the suit. This temporary injunction had been served upon the opposite parties before 5-3-1976, when at about 2 p. m. the opposite parties cut and appropriated the standing pea crop despite the applicant's protests at the spot. 3. The applicant lodged FIR the same day (5-3-1976) at 5.30 p.m. which led to the prosecution of the opposite parties. In their statement, u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the opposite parties pleaded not guilty and denied having cut the crop stealthily. A submission was also made by the Learned Counsel for opposite parties, in the trial court, that the opposite parties bad cut away the crop in exercise of bona fide exercise of title to the property. 4. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, held that applicant Chiranjee Narain Singh was in possession of the plots in dispute and bad sown the crop and that the opposite parties had wrongfully cut it away in violation of the order of injunction and bad committed an offence punishable u/s 379 IPC. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the opposite parties for the offence u/s 379 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- each, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months' each. 5. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the opposite parties for the offence u/s 379 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 100/- each, or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months' each. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad referred to the decision in the cases of Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar v. Abanidhar Roy 1964 ALJ 66 (SC) and Jasvintsingh ji Bapubha v. Gordhandas Dhanji Malaviye 1952 CriLJ 1098 (Saurashtra) and held that the opposite parties had cut away the disputed crop on the disputed plots under bona fide claim thereon. He, therefore, acquitted the opposite parties. 6. Applicant Chiranjee Narain Singh filed this revision, u/s 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite service of notice. 7. I have gone through the record of the case with the aid of Learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Government Advocate. 8. The Learned Counsel for applicant has correctly pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the question of possession over the disputed land/crops which was essential to find out whether an offence of theft, as contemplated u/s 378 IPC, could be made out. Similarly, he has correctly urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has totally ignored the fact that the opposite parties had been served with an order of temporary injunction, passed by the Civil Court, restraining them from cutting the crops before they committed the offence in question. 9. Two of the ingredients of offence of theft u/s 378 IPC are dishonest intention and taking the property out of possession of another person. We are not concerned with the other ingredients of the offence because it is admitted even by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the opposite parties had cut away the crops without the consent of the applicant. Section 24 IPC defines an act to be done dishonestly if it is done with an intention of wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. According to Section 23 IPC wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled; wrongful loss is loss by unlawful means of the property to which the person losing ft is legally entitled. According to Section 23 IPC wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled; wrongful loss is loss by unlawful means of the property to which the person losing ft is legally entitled. Since an interim injunction had been passed by a competent court, restraining the opposite parties from cutting the crops, there can be no doubt that after service of that restraint order the opposite parties were not legally entitled to cut the crop. Since the cutting of crop was done definite protests of the applicant, it is clear that the opposite parties had made a wrongful gain to themselves as contemplated u/s 23 IPC and thus had committed an act of removing the crop dishonestly. There is no question of bona fide belief of exercise of right of appropriation of crop where a clear injunction order was issued by court of competent civil jurisdiction. What the law protects is a bona fide exercise of right, not a flagrant violation or prohibited exercise of a right. The two cases, relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, do not concern a case where any injunction order was passed by a competent court. They could not, therefore, be relied upon as proper precedents for the present case. 10. However, at the same time, the mere subsistence of an interim injunction order could not afford adequate or sufficient basis for a finding that an offence of 'theft' has been committed because, as the definition of the expression stands u/s 378 IPC, possession of a person, other than the offender, has got to be established by the prosecution. Sheer violation of an interim order of injunction, without anything more, would visit the offender with a penalty provided for under Order 39 Rule 2-A Code of Criminal Procedure, such violation would extend to the commission of an offence of theft only if the ingredients of Section 378 IPC were made out. It was, therefore, necessary for the Additional Sessions Judge to record a clear finding on the question whether or not the applicant was in possession of the crop which had been removed by the opposite parties. The trial court had specifically considered that question, in the light of the evidence on record, and had arrived at the finding that the applicant was in possession and that the opposite parties were not in possession. The trial court had specifically considered that question, in the light of the evidence on record, and had arrived at the finding that the applicant was in possession and that the opposite parties were not in possession. The lower appellate court having failed to consider that finding of the court below and to have recorded its own finding thereon, fell into an error of judgment which must be corrected in the exercise of this Court's revisional powers. 11. The revision is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal, dated 26-9-1980, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad, are set aside. Cr. Appeal No. 125 of 1979, before the lower appellate court is remanded to the court of Sessions at Faizabad, which shall hear the appeal or make it over to any other Additional Sessions Judge for disposal after an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, bearing in 'mind the observations contained in the body of this judgment. 12. Lower court record will be sent immediately to the court concerned. Revision allowed.