An infringement of a mandatory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as Section 222(2), which prescribes the manner of trial, cannot be cured by Section 537 of the Code and renders the trial illegal.

FACTS: The charge framed against the four accused in this case consisted of four heads. The first head of the charge was that the first accused as the Chairman of the managing committee of the society, namely, the Nandurbar Agricultural Cooperative Purchases and Sales Union Ltd. and the 2nd accused as Chairman who succeeded the 1st accused, and the third accused as Shop Manager of the Society, and the fourth accused as a member of the the Society, and Tipari as cashier of the Society, had in the beginning of the month of March 1949 entered into a criminal conspiracy with intent to defraud the Society in respect of its funds with the object of securing wrongful and unauthorised gain to the firm, of the fourth accused and also to benefit themselves dishonestly and wrongfully by advancing monies ostensibly to the firm of the fourth accused in violation of the law and in contravention of the bye-laws of the Society and had thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 120B read with S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The second head of the charge as originally framed was that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 having dominion over the funds of the Society had, in collaboration with Tipari between 6th March 1949 and 31andt March, 1951, advanced from time to time illegally, dishonestly, unauthorisedly and fraudulently sums aggregating to Rupees 2,18,369/7/9 to the firm of the fourth accused in contravention of the bye-laws of the Society when the firm of the fourth accused was not a member of the Society and that thereby accused Nos. 1 and 2 had committed an offence punishable under S. 406 of the Indian Penal Code and the third accused had committed an offence punishable under S. 408 of the Indian Penal Code and the fourth accused had committed an offence punishable under S. 406 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The third head of the charge related to falsification of the accounts of the Society by showing that on 20-11-1950 an amount of Rs. 8,000/- was received from the firm of the fourth accused, and the charge stated that accused No. 3 had thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 477A of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 1 and 2 had committed an offence punishable under S. 477A read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth "head of the charge was that by forging two receipts Exts. 165 and 166, D/-21-11-1950, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had committed and offence punishable under S. 467 of the Indian Penal Code, or, in the alternative, an offence punishable under S. 467 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

All the 4 accused denied having committed the offences charged against them. The fourth accused stated that he himself and for his own purposes borrowed the monies from the Society and that he was responsible for repayment of the same. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 denied the charges of conspiracy and misappropriation of the funds of the Society and also of fabrication of the accounts and the receipts in respect of the amount of Rs. 8,000/-.

The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted all the-four accused of the charges relating to conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. He, however, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges under Sections 477A and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the order of conviction and sentence these appeals have been preferred to the High Court.

In the appeals, a preliminary objection was raised as to the validity of the trial. It was urged that the charge framed against the accused contravened the provisions of S. 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on that account the trial was vitiated.

SHAH, J. : (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded)-It is urged that the second head of the charge infringed the express provision contained in the proviso to section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on that account the trial held before the Court of Session was illegal. Originally the charge related to a period between 6th March 1949 and 31st March 1951. It appears