( 25 )
instead of taking them to the nearest pound, drove them twelve Sept.2Q,i9ioor fourteen miles to a pound in the next district; the Magistrate Hutchinsonconsidered that wrongful loss was intended, because the act was C-J.done with the malicious intent of subjecting the owners to additional Abdul v.Diasexpense, and he convicted the accused of theft under section 379of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court quashed the conviction,holding that the wrongful loss referred to in section 24, which is inthe same terms as section 22 of our Code, referred to the thingdishonestly taken, i.e., to the animals ; they said that the lastwords of section 23 (our section 21) : “to which the person losing itis legally entitled,” show that that is what is meant. In the caseof P. K. Patra v. Vdoy Sant1 the accused, with a view to coerce thecomplainant to pay a sum which he owed to the accused,' removedsome cattle from the complainant’s homestead. His intention wasto induce the complainant to pay him a debt which was legallydue, and it seems to me difficult to say that he intended to causewrongful loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to himself.
The Court held that it was not a case of theft, but not on thatground ; they thought that to gain property by unlawful meansmeant to gain the thing used for the use of the gainer. But theyalso referred to illustration (/) to section 378, which is the sameillustration to our section 366 : “ A takes an article belonging toZ out of Z’s possession, without Z’s consent, with the intention ofkeeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its resto-ration. Here A takes dishonestly. A has therefore committedtheft ” ; and they said the effect of that is that “ it is theft if .a persontakes the property of another for the purpose of extorting from theowner, in exchange for the thing taken, something which the takerhas no right to claim.” It seems to me probable that their decisionwould have been the other way if the fact had been that the accusedhad taken the cattle for the purpose of causing the owner to paysomething which he was not legally bound to pay. In the last-mentioned case the Court discussed several cases decided in India.
One was that in 24 W. R. ; another, the 9th, was that of Paryay Raiv. Argu Mian,'1 in which the accused had loosened the complainant’scattle at night and driven them to the pound with the object ofsharing with the pound owner the fees to be paid for their release ;and the High Court held that that was theft. In my opinionillustration (/) to section 366 shows that the act of this appellantwas theft, and the conviction was right. The appeal is dimissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1 (1895) 22 Cal. 669.
1 (1894) 22 Cal. 139.