1. Two points have been raised before us by Mr. Thakore in this appeal. He contends that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained on the merits because the order of conviction in substance is based on the evidence of accomplice witnesses and the only corroboration on which the prosecution is able to rely is the corroboration coming from the account books written by the accomplices themselves.

Mr. Thakores argument is that once it is held that the witnesses are accomplices, they should not be allowed to corroborate themselves even though they seek to corroborate their oral testi-mony by the production of a contemporaneous document in the form of account books. Corroboration which is required in law to the testimony of an accomplice is corroboration coming from independent sources, and Mr. Thakore is prepared to say that even if the evidence of the prosecution is taken at its highest the only corroboration which the prosecution has been able to produce is from the accomplices themselves

2. The second point which Mr. Thakore has raised is that the whoie of the trial is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the appellant could not be prosecuted for the offence charged wit