JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision petition against the Appellate judgment of the Session Judge of Sambalpur, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 406, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine passed on him by a Second Class Magistrate of Bargarh. 2. The facts alleged by the prosecution are these. The complainant (opposite party) Padmalochan Agarwalla knew the Petitioner from before and they used to have previous monetary transactions including the taking of loans, or purchasing of articles on credit and, sometimes on cash basis. It was alleged that on 14-6-1960 the complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 675/- to the petitioner when the latter assured him that he would purchase gold for him from Bargarh and deliver the same in the evening of the next day. But on the next day when the complainant went to the Petitioner?s house, the latter told him frankly that he had spent the money but promised to pay it back on the next date. But on the next day also the Petitioner evaded payment and subsequently a Punchayati was held on 14-6-1960 where the Petitioner promised to pay the money in instalments. The complainant however did not agree to this arrangement and then filed the criminal case out of which the present revision petition arises. 3. On the facts as stated by the complainant himself, it is clear that this is a simple case of civil liability which ought not to have been agitated in the criminal court. The parties are well known to each other, having previous financial transactions. It is true that when the Petitioner received the money from the complainant he agreed to buy gold for that sum and deliver the same to him the next day. But on the next day he frankly told the complainant that he had spent the money for his own purposes and that he would pay the money later on. The complainant did not protest on that occasion against this conduct of the Petitioner, but agreed to wait till the next day. Subsequently there was failure to re-pay the money as promised. The main element for the offence u/s 406 Indian Penal Code is the existence of dishonest intention. The complainant did not protest on that occasion against this conduct of the Petitioner, but agreed to wait till the next day. Subsequently there was failure to re-pay the money as promised. The main element for the offence u/s 406 Indian Penal Code is the existence of dishonest intention. Where there were previous monetary transactions between the parties and where there was no attempt to conceal the fact that the money was received and the complainant himself released the Petitioner from the obligation to buy gold and agreed to accept repayment of the money paid to him on the next day, no question of criminality arises; it is simply a dispute between creditor and debtor. If the Petitioner had any dishonest intention he would not have frankly admitted that the money had been spent by him for his own use and asked for time till next day to pay it back. The criminal machinery should not be used to coerce a party to pay back the money which he owed to the complainant. For these reasons, I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquit the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed