JUDGMENT V. P. Bhatnagar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 31, 1984, of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, (I) Simla, by which he acquitted accused Shankar Lal of an offence under section 380,1. P. C. 2. The incident is stated to have taken place on May 23, 1982. On the previous evening, Ramesh Chand who lodged the First Information Report alongwith one Mathu Ram stayed in Room No. 25 of Jain Dharamshala. Ramesh Chand had kept currency notes of Rs 1,478 below the pillow of his bed. Next morning both of them vacated the room at about 8. a. m. leaving behind the aforesaid currency notes in the room. They went to a barber shop. Ramesh Chand after getting his hair cut recollected that he had forgotten to bring with him the currency notes in question. When he went back to the room he found the notes missing. His suspicion centered round accused Shankar Lal who was then working as sweeper in the Dharamshala. He then proceeded to lodge a report with the police. During investigation accused Shankar Lal made a disclosure statement pursuant to which currency notes of Rs. 1,478 were recovered. 3. The learned trial Magistrate, after appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the fact that the accused had removed the currency notes in question kept by complainant Ramesh Chand under the pillow of his bed in Room No. 25 of Jain Dharamsala and that the said notes were recovered as stated above. Nevertheless he was of the opinion that the essential ingredients constituting an offence under section 380. I. P. C. had not been made out and, therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused. Hence this appeal. 4. The finding of the learned trial Court revolves around the interpretation of theft defined in section 378, I. P. C. This section reads: "378. Theft.—Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft. 5. The learned trial Court has been of the view that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the movable property had been taken "out of the possession of any person without that persons consent". 5. The learned trial Court has been of the view that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the movable property had been taken "out of the possession of any person without that persons consent". The learned lower court also relied upon Illustration (g) under section 378 which reads as under: "Illustration (g).— A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may have committed criminal misappropriation of property. 6. The lower court then proceeded to hold that the currency notes had not been taken out of the possession of the complainant Ramesh Chand since he had already vacated the room and had handed over its pos session to the Manager of Jain Dharamsala. 7. I am afraid the law as interpreted by the learned trial Court can not be held to be sound. The facts can certainly not be equated with those given in illustration (g) reproduced above for the simple reason that some thing lying on the high road and being picked up by a passer-by is entirely a different matter than pocketing forgotten currency notes in a hotel or a Dharamsala by its last occupant. In such a case the possession reverts to the management of the Hotel or Dharamsala and it was incumbent on any employee working at such places to hand over such missing articles to the management Even the possession of the management over such articles cannot be but on behalf of the occupant who owns those articles. The proven act of accused Shankar Lal in pocketing the currency notes squarely falls within the definition of theft as contained in section 378, I. P. C. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court on the above point are set aside. 8. As stated above, the incident took place on May 23, 1982. Tie currency notes stand recovered. The accused was then working as a Sqfai labourer in the Dharamsala and it appears that he unwittingly fell to the temptation of making some easy money in the chance circumstances in which he found himself to be. In totality, therefore, I do not think it is a case fit for being remanded with the object of sending the accused behind the bar. In totality, therefore, I do not think it is a case fit for being remanded with the object of sending the accused behind the bar. In stead, the ends of justice would be met in case a warning is administered to the accused under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly this appeal is accepted and the accused is convicted under section 380, I.P.C. but is admonished and ordered to be set at liberty. Appeal allowed.-