Kamla Sahai, J.

1. The petitioners have been convicted under Sec.380 of the Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Out of the fines, if realised, a sum of Rs. 100 has been ordered to be paid as compensation to complainant Akloo Manjhi (P. W. 1).

2. The prosecution case is that Aldoo (P. W. 1) had taken a loan of a certain quantity of paddy from petitioner Budhan Singh. On the 18th May, 1958. Budhan Singh demanded repayment of the loan; but Akloo said that he was then unable to pay. Thereupon, the two petitioners took away Akloos cow which was tied in his house.

3. The defence is that petitioner Budhan had purchased the cow in question from Ambika Manjhi, nati of Akloo (P. W. 1).

4. The Courts below have accepted the prosecution case, and have disbelieved the defence. They have, therefore, convicted and sentenced the petitioners as I have already mentioned.

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Ugra Singh has raised two points. His first point is that none of the alleged eye witnesses for the prosecution can be accepted as having proved the occurrence because the allege