Short Note : 1. The case of the complainant was that it was agreed in between him and the accused applicant that he would retain the she-buffalo even after the sale till it calved and would return the same immediately within a week thereafter. On the basis of the evidence brought on record, it was found by the Magistrate that the allegations made by the complainant were fully established and despite having received the sale price and having agreed to retain the she-buffalo only for a limited period, the applicant dishonestly misappropriated the same and did not return it to the complainant. Under these circumstances the applicant was found guilty for an offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 months. The aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence was also affirmed by the appellate Court. Held : The applicant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, had preferred this revision. Shri Surendra Singh. learned counsel for the applicant contended that the dispute involved was of a civil nature and there was no justification for holding the applicant guilty of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and for imposing any sentence. However, when asked to point out certain material on record on the basis of which it can be inferred that the conduct on the part of the applicant, in not returning the she-buffalo having received the sale price as per agreed terms, after it had calved, was bonafide, the learned counsel could not point out any, because the defence put up by the applicant was of total denial. Shri Surendra Singh also pointed out that a civil suit is already pending in respect of the recovery of the she-buffalo or the amount of its price along with damages. In my opinion, even if such a suit is pending, the same does not affect the question of liability of the appellant on criminal side. Shri Surendra Singh also pointed out that a civil suit is already pending in respect of the recovery of the she-buffalo or the amount of its price along with damages. In my opinion, even if such a suit is pending, the same does not affect the question of liability of the appellant on criminal side. This having been fully established that the applicant did receive the price of the she-buffalo and had sold it to the complainant, refusal on his part to return the same to the complainant as per agreed terms, i.e. after it had calved, has been rightly found to be dishonest, in the absence of any material to show that there was any dispute in between the parties about the entitlement of the complainant to get the she-buffalo back. Revision partly allowed. Sentence reduced.