The petitioner was the accused in Criminal Case No. 2093 of 1963 in the Court of the Second Additional Munsif and J.M.F.C. II Court, Dharwar. The petitioner was the secretary of a village panchayat. He had been charged for offences punishable under sections 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations were to the effect that on 14th June, 1963 he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 498-60 P.; it had been further alleged that he had made false entries on 21st June, 1963. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused, for both the offences. For the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Against the said conviction and sentences an appeal was preferred. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Dharwar heard the same, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1967 on the file of his Court. He acquitted the petitioner of the offence under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code; but, he confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. It is thereafter, that the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed in this Court.

I have heard Sri L.G. Havanur, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dayananda, learned Advocate appearing for the State Public Prosecutor.

The only legal contention which has been urged by Shri Havanur is chat at the trial, there was a misjoinder of charges and that the same has occasioned a failure of justice. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate also sought to rely on the fact that it is on the ground that there was misjoinder of charges that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the petitioner for the offence under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. It would be relevant to refer to this part of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. This is what he has stated:

“The false entries in Exhibit P-15 were made on 21st June, 1963. These entries were not made in the course of the misappropriation of the balance of Rs. 498-60 as on 14th June, 1963. The false entries made on 21st June, 1963 were not made in the course of the same transaction of misappropriation of Rs. 498-60 less Rs. 113-41 as on 14th June, 1963. Therefore, the offences of misappropriation and falsification of accounts, cannot be said to have been committed in the course of the same transaction in this case. Hence, the joinder of the charge under section 477-A in this case amounts to a misjoinder. (Vide C.N. Krishnamurthy v.State of Mysore1),In these circumstances, I am inclined to hold on point No. 2 in the affirmative”.

In the absence of allegations necessary to bring the case under section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there should have been separate charges and separate trial for the two offences, having regard to what is required by section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When it was not the case of the prosecution that the offence of misappropriation and the offence of falsification of accounts were so connected with each other as to form the same transaction, there would have been a separate charge for each of those offences and each offence had to be tried separately. To that extent, the learned Sessions Judge was right in taking the view that there had been a misjoinder of charges. But, the further argument of Sri Havanur is that it must have been because the learned Sessions Judge had been satisfied that the misjoinder had occasioned a failure of justice, that he acquitted the petitioner of the offence under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. Following that line of argument, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the irregularity had occasioned a failure of justice, there was