John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Burkitt, J.
1. This case has been referred to us by the Magistrate of the district of Fatehpur, owing to the decision in Prosonno Kumar Patra v. Udoy Sant I.L.R. 22 Cal. 669. The facts of the present case are that one Ram Adhin was in debt to the accused. The accused proceeded to compel liquidation of the debt by taking away from Ram Adhin’s. house in his absence, and without Ram Adhin’s consent, a cart and four bullocks belonging to Ram Adhin. He intended to hold them apparently until the debt was paid, as it was not proved or suggested that the accused intended permanently to deprive Ram Adhin of the property. This case is governed by the same principle as that of the Queen-Empress v. Sumeshar Rai, Weekly Notes, 1888, p. 96. In our opinion the accused was properly convicted of theft. We are unable to agree with the decision of the High Court of Calcutta to which we have referred. We prefer to abide by the view of the law which has been accepted in these Provinces and which we think is correct.
2. We see no reason for interfering. The record will be returned.