ORDER : In this case, the accused petitioner was convicted under section 411, L P. Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 200/-. On appeal, the learned additional Sessions Judge altered the conviction under Sec. 411, I. P. Code to one under Sec. 403, I. P. Code and maintained the sentence originally passed. 2. The accused was convicted under Sec. 411, I. P. Code on an allegation that he dishonestly received or retained possession of a pair of buffaloes belonging to one Kasim Ali and a buffalo cart belonging to one Azit Mandal, as he was found in possession of both the properties on the morning of 22-7-58. The case for the accused petitioner was that he was not guilty and he did not know as to who had brought the buffalo cart along with the buffaloes to his compound, he himself having nothing to do with them. 3. It appears that information about the missing of the buffaloes and the buffalo cart was lodged with the police at Hangaldoi after the properties were seized from the possession of the accused petitioner. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the charge under Sec. 411, I. P. Code, as already indicated, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, held that the theft of the cattle and the cart was not established, and that since there was no theft, there could be no conviction under Sec. 411, I. P. Code, and he rightly acquitted the accused petitioner of the charge under Sec. 411, I. P. Code, but convicted him under section 403, I. P. Code, which reads as follows :- Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any moveable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Here, there was no finding that the accused petitioner misappropriated or converted the properties in question to his own use, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge observes that the petitioner had the obvious intention of doing so. To have an intention of doing a wrong and to do a wrong are two different things, and unless the section itself lays down that to have an intention of doing a wrong is, by itself, an offence, the petitioner cannot be convicted of an intention, howsoever wrong unless it is carried into action. In this case, there was no finding to the effect that the petitioner had misappropriated of converted the properties to his own use. In these circumstances, the conviction is bad in law. I accordingly direct that the conviction and sentence be set aside, and the accused petitioner be freed from his bail bond. The fine if realised, should be refunded to the petitioner. The Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.