Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay, raises the question whether the contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, in the framing of the charge against an accused, vitiates the trial.

2. The facts leading to the appeal, in brief, are as follows. The respondents were charged and tried at the same trial of the offences under S. 120-B read with S. 406, I. P.C., and of an offence under S. 406, I. P. C., committed in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy they had entered into. They were also tried, but acquitted of other offences charged with. They appealed against their conviction of the offence under S. 120-B read with S. 406, I.P.C., and of the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. The charge under S. 406, Indian Penal Code was with respect to the commission of breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 2,18,369/- between the period March 6, 1949, and June 30,1950. It was contended before the High Court that the charge framed contravened the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 222 of the Code which allowed a combined charge with respect to the amount embezzled within a