JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J. - The learned vakil for the applicant has argued, firstly, that no offence u/s 406 was committed as there has been no misappropriation, and, secondly, that in view of a clause in the supurdnama for the payment of the price of the cattle, there was no criminal misappropriation. 2. The applicant has not put the cattle to his own use nor has he disposed of them dishonestly. What has happened is that he is holding them still as trustee, but he is denying that he is holding them on behalf of the receiver from whom he had taken them. He now asserts that the cattle belong to another person on whose behalf he holds them. Misappropriation has not been expressly defined in the Indian Penal Code. The illustrations to Section 403 all relate to cases where a person appropriates the article to his own use, but the illustrations cannot be taken to limit or narrow the scope of Section 403 itself. It seems to me that if a person sets apart an article for the use of another person, of which article he is a trustee of the complainant, he misappropriates it even though he has not put it to his own use. Section 403 is in no way restricted to appropriating property to one's own use. If a trustee repudiates the trust and asserts that he now holds the property on behalf of a person other than the one who entrusted him with it, he has misappropriated the property just as much as he would have been said to misappropriate it if he had been putting forward his own claim to it. The applicant got possession of the cattle from the receiver and undertook to return them to the receiver. When subsequently he repudiated the right of the receiver to attach the cattle and asserted that they really belonged to the insolvent's brother and that he would not hand them over to the receiver, he must be deemed to have committed a misappropriation. 3. As regards the second point, the relevant portion of the supurdnama is as follows: "Whenever the court or the receiver demands the production of the attached property I shall deliver the same without objection. If for any reason I fail to deliver them, then I shall pay the price, Rs. 3. As regards the second point, the relevant portion of the supurdnama is as follows: "Whenever the court or the receiver demands the production of the attached property I shall deliver the same without objection. If for any reason I fail to deliver them, then I shall pay the price, Rs. 950." The argument, of the learned vakil for the applicant is that when it was clearly stipulated that in case of failure to deliver the cattle the applicant would be liable to pay their price amounting to Rs. 950, his default cannot amount to a criminal misappropriation, and that at best his liability was only a civil liability. But the mere fact that there was a civil liability does not necessarily absolve one from criminal liability. When a receiver attaches property and entrusts it to some person in the village, he does not purport to sell it to him or dispose of it at that time. The receiver may not even be in a position to know its true value. The intention of the parties is that the articles should be returned in specie or produced at the time when the auction sale is to take place. The covenant that the accused would be liable to pay a certain amount is more by way of security than because the property is transferred to him with liberty to dispose of it or withhold it. In such cases it is the true intention of the parties which must be taken into account. There can be no doubt that in this case it could never have been the intention of the receiver that the property attached should not be actually produced when the auction is to take place. If such property is not produced, the insolvent as well as the creditors may suffer, for it cannot be known beforehand what actual price would be fetched at the sale. 4. I dismiss the application.