Cbaudhary S. S. Sinha, J.

1. This application in revision by the solepetitioner is directed against the judgment of the learned 5th Additional Sessions judge, Monghyr by which setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under section 411 I. P. C. and the sentence passed thereunder, he confirmed his conviction and sentence under section 379 of the I. P. C.

2. The informant in this case is one Ulfat (P. W.5) who is not only a covillager of the petitioner, but a close neighbour too the distance between their house being only one Rassi. On 10 12.1972 at about 5 p. m. the petitioner is said to have gone to the Darwaja of the informant and forcibly (Jabardasti)removed one of his bullocks worth Rs.300/-. On the objection raised by the informant as to why he was removing his bullock, the assertion made by the petitioner was that since he (the informant) owed money to him he was taking away the bullock. The petitioner brought the bullock and tied it at his Bathan along with other bullocks. Though the police station is only at a distance of 5 miles, the informant lodged the first information report on 11.12.1972 at 10 a. m. A case was registered and investigation began. When the I. O. went for investigation, ho found the bullock in question present and tied in the Bathan of the petitioner. The bullock was seized by the I. O. and he returned the bullock to the informant. The police submitted chargesheet. Charges under two counts were framed against the petitioner in the trial court firstly, under section 379 and secondly under section 411 I. P. C. The defence set up was dental of the guilt and further that the petitioner forcibly removed the bullock as the informant was not prepared to pay his debt.

3. The prosecution case found favour with the trial Court and the petitioner was convicted both under section 379 and 411 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under each count and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred an appeal with the result stated above. This is how the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

4. The short point urged by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner was that in the circumstances of the case no dishonest intention can be imputed to the petitioner while removing the bullock and as such the ingredients of section 379 I. P. C. were not attracted and he deserved acquittal. Two other points were urged by him, It was submitted that the petitioners being 21 years of age of the date of commission of the offence, he was entitled to the offence, he was entitled to the benefits of sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal procedure and the same having been denied to him, his conviction was illegal. Lastly it was submitted that the petitioner being in jail custody for one month, the period already undergone by him be deemed sufficient.

5. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has force and it must prevail. It is in evidence of the informant himself that when the petitioner went to his Darwaja and began untieing the bullock, he prevented him from doing so. But the reply that came from the petitioner was that he was taking the bullock as he owed him money. As submitted, the first information report also stated about the petitioner removing the bullock forcibly (Jabardasti ). A question was asked from the informant (P. W.5) regarding the intention behind the forcible taking of the bullock. But the reply that came from him was that he could not say as to what was the intention of the petitioner in taking the bullock forcibly, vide deposition of P. W.5 paragraph 1. The subsequent conduct of the petitioner has also to be borne in mind. As stated above, his house is only one Rassi away from the house of the informant. After the bullock was removed by him, he kept it openly at his Bathan along with his other bullocks. Undisputedly when the I. O. came he also found the bullock present in the said Bathan. The petitio