JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The two Petitioners have been convicted u/s 379 Indian Penal Code, and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banpur. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed their conviction, but altered the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Out of the fine amount the learned Sessions Judge has directed that a sum of Rs. 500/- be paid to the complainant (P.W. 1) as compensation. 2. The opposite party had given the F.I.R. that from the land possessed by him which he had purchased from one Gadei Pradhan, father of Petitioner No. 1, six teak trees were Cut and removed by both the Petitioners on 20th and 31st of January, 1980. The value of the said trees would be about Rs. 40,000/-. Not with standing the lodging of information with the police the opposite party filed a complaint on 30-1-1980 since he apprehended that charge-sheet may not be filed in the case. The learned Magistrate therefore, directer for an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the said enquiry, the complainant examined his witnesses where upon the learned Magistrate took cognisance and ultimately in the trial the two Petitioners were convicted u/s 379, Indian Penal Code. 3. The plea of the defence was that late Gadei had never executed any sale deed nor gave delivery of possession of the disputed land to the complainant and Petitioner No. 1 Sukadeva Pradhan sold the trees to one Basanta Kumar Ray (D.W. 2) who authorised Petitioner No. 2 to cut and remove the trees in question. In essence, therefore, the defence plea is one of an assertion of bona fide claim of right. 4. The complainant examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. On behalf of the defence seven witnesses were examined and also some documents were proved. On the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 who are neighbouring land-owners, the evidence of the complainant (P.W. 1) and the evidence of P.W. 4 who is the scribe of the sale deed (Ext. On behalf of the defence seven witnesses were examined and also some documents were proved. On the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 who are neighbouring land-owners, the evidence of the complainant (P.W. 1) and the evidence of P.W. 4 who is the scribe of the sale deed (Ext. 1) executed by Gadei in favour of the complainant in the year 1963, the two courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the land in question had been sold to the complainant who was in possession of the same from the date of the sale i.e., 23-7-1963. It may be noted that Ext. 1 is a registered sale deed. This finding arrived at by the two courts below cannot be disturbed in this revision. The defence plea as unfolded through the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 claiming rival possession of Petitioner Sukadeva was negatived as these two defence witnesses were held to be untrustworthy. Coming to the question of bona fide claim of right, though large number of defence witnesses have been examined, the learned Sessions Judge after thorough discussion of their evidence has rejected the plea. 5. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that to attract the offence of theft, there must be not only no legal right but also no appearance or colour of legal right and the fact that Sukadeva sold the trees to D.W. 2 who authorised Petitioner No. 2 to cut the trees and the trees were cut and removed openly and not clandestinely would indicate that the Petitioners were exercising a bona fide claim of right since Sukadeva had no idea about the alleged sale deed (Ext. 1) executed by his father. It is difficult for me to accept the aforesaid contention in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The sale deed in question which was registered deed was executed as early as on 23-7-1963. The oral evidence is consistent to the effect that after executing the sale deed late Gadei Pradhan put the complainant into possession of the land. The land in question was mutated in favour of the complainant in the year 1967. The complainant also produced rent receipts in respect of the land in question. The oral evidence is consistent to the effect that after executing the sale deed late Gadei Pradhan put the complainant into possession of the land. The land in question was mutated in favour of the complainant in the year 1967. The complainant also produced rent receipts in respect of the land in question. In this view of the matter the alleged sale of the trees by Sukadeva in favour of D.W. 2 cannot be considered to be an act of bona fide clam of right. The assertion of a claim of right must be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that the property may not belong to or be in the possession of the complainant. The claim of right must not be a mere colourable pretence, but must be a bona fide one. If in assertion of a right to some property, the accused does something which he knows he has no right to do, and there removes the property in question from the possession of the complainant, the accused is guilty of theft. As has been held by this Court in the case of Tularam Patel Vs. Siba Sankar Kalo and Others. mere existence of right, appearance or colour of a legal right in the facts and circumstances of a particular case would not exonerate the accused. He must claim such a right and the claim must be bona fide that is to say, he must honestly believe that he has such a right. Every Court before giving full effect to the plea of bona fide claim of right, which is always a good defence for prosecution for theft, must find out if such belief existed and the claim was bona fide. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid case to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am entirely in agreement with the conclusion of the courts below that the accused did not have a right much less a bona fide claim over the said right or even had not the colour of a legal right. In that view of the matter, the conviction of Petitioner Sukadeva u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, must be sustained. The sentence passed thereunder taking into consideration the nature and circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed cannot be held to be severe and accordingly does not require any interference. 6. In that view of the matter, the conviction of Petitioner Sukadeva u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, must be sustained. The sentence passed thereunder taking into consideration the nature and circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed cannot be held to be severe and accordingly does not require any interference. 6. So far as Petitioner No. 2, Manas Das, is concerned, however, it is the consistent case that he cut and removed the trees on being directed by D.W. 2, one Basanta Kumar Ray, to whom Sukadeva had sold the trees. Thus Petitioner No. 2 was acting on behalf of Basanta Kumar Ray and did not have any mens rea with himself either in the matter of cutting or removal of the trees in question. In that view of the matter, the conviction of Petitioner No. 2 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The sentence passed thereunder also is set aside. 7. In the result, therefore, the conviction and sentence of Petitioner Sukadeva are upheld and the conviction and sentence passed against Petitioner Manas Das are set aside. The Criminal Revision is allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed