Golam Hussain and Another vs Emperor

On the findings of fact by the Appellate Court it seems clear that-there was no trust which would bring the case u/s 406, Indian Penal Code. Payment was made to the petitioners of a debt, directly that sum was paid the debt was paid off, and the money so paid they were entitled to retain What they failed to do was to carry out the condition on which the money was paid, namely, to re-turn the bond, The learned, Magistrate in, his explanation suggests that the matter might constitute an offence u/s 403, Indian Penal Code, but there, again, he is met with the objection that there was no dishonest misappropriation of this money or wrongful conversion to the use of the petitioners The money was paid in satisfaction or part satisfaction of a debt. Their offence really consists in their subsequently denying the fact of payment. That however, could not be taken in to account in the present, trial. The Rule must be made absolute, the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners will be set aside and their bail bonds will be discharged. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.