JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Athagarh against the Petitioners u/s 379/34, Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short). 2. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 1 was formerly the managing trustee of the deities Shree Dadhibaban Deb and Kunjabehari Deb of his village. In the year 1978, he had raised paddy on his own land measuring an area of 0.89 acres as well as on the land of the deities bearing plot No. 158 of Khata No. 83 of mouza-Udayapurdesh, in respect of which he claimed to be a Bhag cultivator. On 26-11-1978 he had employed tabourers to reap the paddy sheaves and after they had been reaped the labourers were removing the paddy sheaves in bundles to the thrashing floor of P.W. 1. At that time the Petitioners appeared at the scene and forced the labourers to carry the paddy sheaves and deposited the same in the communal thrashing floor of the village. The labourers out of fear carried the bundles of paddy sheaves and deposited the same in the communal thrashing floor of the village. After the occurrence, P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. at the police station and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioners for an offence punishable u/s 379/34, I.P.C. The defence of the Petitioners was that they did not commit the offence of theft of paddy sheaves. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate considered the evidence of as many as ten prosecution witnesses and held that the prosecution had proved its case of theft of' paddy sheaves against the Petitioners and, on conviction u/s 379/34, I.P.C., sentenced each of the Petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge who concurred in the findings and upheld the order of conviction and sentence. 4. Mr. B.K. Beura, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, urged that the Petitioners had no dishonest intention in directing removal of the bundles of paddy sheaves to the communal thrashing - floor of the village. The Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge who concurred in the findings and upheld the order of conviction and sentence. 4. Mr. B.K. Beura, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, urged that the Petitioners had no dishonest intention in directing removal of the bundles of paddy sheaves to the communal thrashing - floor of the village. As a matter of fact, Petitioner 3 had been appointed' as the managing trustee of the deities and he had already taken charge of the management of the affairs of the temple. Therefore, in order to smoothly manage the affairs of the temple, he collected the paddy sheaves bundles raised on the lands of the deities, for which he did not commit the offence of theft. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged that in view of the concurrent findings of fact, conviction and sentence for theft of paddy u/s 379/34, I.P.C. is inescapable. 5. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned courts below is that P.W. 1 had raised paddy not only on his own land but also on the land of the deities claiming to be Bhag Chasi. On the date of occurrence, he reaped the paddy sheaves and was removing the same to his own thrashing floor with the help of labourers. The Petitioners directed the labourers to carry the bundles of paddy sheaves to the communal thrashing-floor of the village by show of force. This concurrent finding of fact apparent on the face of the record by the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence cannot be disturbed. 6. The most important point for consideration in a case of this nature is whether the Petitioners had the dishonest intention of committing theft of the paddy sheaves. According to the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, P.W. 1 was formerly the managing trustee of the deities and by the date the occurrence took place had been removed from that office. On the other hand, Petitioner 3 had been appointed as the managing trustee of the deities and he had already taken over charge of the affairs of the temple. Taking over charge of the affairs of the temple means performance of Seba Puja and offer of Bhog to the deities for which it was necessary to incur expenditure. On the other hand, Petitioner 3 had been appointed as the managing trustee of the deities and he had already taken over charge of the affairs of the temple. Taking over charge of the affairs of the temple means performance of Seba Puja and offer of Bhog to the deities for which it was necessary to incur expenditure. From the lands of the deities; the usufructs in the shape of bundles of paddy sheaves were going to be transported to the personal thrashing floor of P.W. 1. The Petitioners directed, may be by show of force to the labourers, to carry the bundles of paddy sheaves to the communal thrashing-floor of the village so that the paddy would be thrashed and out of the income thereof Seba Puja of the deities would be smoothly performed. If the Petitioners would have carried the bundles of paddy sheaves to their own thrashing floors and there was evidence that they appropriated the paddy thrashed, then a dear case of theft would have been made out against them. But in this case such evidence of personal appropriation of the property of the deities is completely absent. As a matter of fact, consideration of the impugned judgments and the materials on record will show that the Petitioners were actuated with the motive of serving the deities in the performance of their Seba Puja. With that end in view, they directed the labourers to carry the paddy sheaves to the communal thrashing-floor. May be in that process P.W. 1 sustained some wrongful loss but nevertheless, the intention of the Petitioners cannot be said to be dishonest. In this connection Mr. Beura cited two decisions. The first decision is reported in Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao and Anr. v. Bodepalli Lakshminarayana and Anr. 1962 S.C.C. 146. Hidayatullah, J., as his Lordship then was, summarised the law of the defence of bona fide claim of right in the following words: ...It is settled law that where a bona fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a legal right. An act does not amount to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a legal right. In 2 East P.C.P. 659, the law was stated as long time ago thus: If there be in the prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if it be brought into doubt at all, the Court will direct an acquittal: And according to 1 Hala P.C. 509, the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly. The law thus stated by East and Hale has not been altered in modern time. There are numerous cases in which Courts in India have recognised a bona fide claim of right as a defence to the charge of theft.... The second case is reported in Ramratan v. State of Bihar 1965 S.C.D. 459, in which their Lordships in paragraphs 26 and 27 observed thus: 26. Even if it be assumed that some sort of loss which is wrongful in nature is caused to the owner of the cattle by illegal seizure and impounding them, the question arises whether the persons, seizing the cattle illegally from a field with the avowed object of taking them to the pound on the ground that it was damaging the field or the crop can be imputed the intention to take the cattle dishonestly. The effect of his seizing the cattle illegally may be assumed to cause wrongful loss to the owner of the cattle but did he so intend? We are of opinion that he did not so intend. His intention at the time, though based on his wrong notions that he was entitled to seize the cattle, was to take them to the pound as required by the Act, so that no further damage be done to the land or property. It is true that intention is mostly gathered from the consequences of the act committed by the accused but that is so because it is not often that the intention with which an act is committed can be definitely known from any previous fact. It is true that intention is mostly gathered from the consequences of the act committed by the accused but that is so because it is not often that the intention with which an act is committed can be definitely known from any previous fact. When a person does a certain act by openly expressing his intention in committing the act there seems no reason why his intention should be gathered by the consequences of his act except in those cases where it is found that the avowed intention Was a mere cloak from some other real intention which is then to be determined in the same way as it is determined in cases of non-expressed intention. 27. In view of the various considerations mentioned above, we are of opinion that when a person seizes cattle on the ground that they were trespassing on his land' and causing damage to his crop or produce and gives out that he was taking them to the pound, he commits no offence of theft however mistaken he may be above his right to that land or crop.... 7. From the aforesaid exposition of law by the Supreme Court, it is crystal clear and there is no doubt left in my mind that the intention of the Petitioners was not at all dishonest. They did not remove the paddy sheaves to appropriate the same or for their own personal use. They were actuated with the religious motive of serving the deities of the village temple in whose land the paddy had been raised. Therefore it is a fit case in which the claim' of bona fide right as a defence to the charge of theft should be accepted. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I find it difficult to sustain the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned courts below. Therefore, while allowing the criminal revision I set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquit the Petitioners of the charge of theft u/s 379/34, I.P.C. They be set at liberty. Fine, if realised, be refunded to them. Final Result : Allowed