Misjoinder of charges is a mere irregularity and does not automatically vitiate a trial or render the acquittal order invalid. It must be established that the misjoinder resulted in a failure of justice to invalidate the order.

J.S. Sekhon, J. - Baldev Singh accused-respondent, while posted as Secretary of Fatuhiwala Co-operative Agricultural Service Society used to collect the amount of fertilizer loan from the members of this society, after relevant entries in the pass-book of such members, he was responsible for reflecting this amount in the cash-book of the society and depositing it with the Central Co-operative Bank. Bhola Singh, PW-6 (Member of Society) paid Rs. 435/- as principal amount and Rs. 20/- as interest of the fertilizer loan to Baldev Singh, accused. He made entry in the pass-book, Exhibit P. 1.6-A, but did not account for this amount in the accounts of the society. Similarly, Gurcharan Singh, PW-8 (Member of the Society) also paid Rs. 1625/- in all to Baldev Singh accused as fertilizer loan while Mst. Surjit Kaur and Kartar singh paid Rs. 50/- and Rs. 60/- respectively. The accused failed to reflect this amount in the cash-book of the society or deposited the same in the Bank.The embezzlement of this amount came to the notice of the audit party of the society, which ultimately resulted in the registration of the case under Sections 420/408/468/471/379, Indian Penal Code at Police Station Lambi against the accused on the report of the Inspector, Co-operative Societies. After completion of the investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations.

2. The trial Court framed a joint charge for offence under section 408, Indian Penal Code, against the accused for all the above referred four incidents of misappropriation. The accused, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

3. In support of its case before the trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Bhola Singh and Gurcharan Singh, witnesses, supported the above version of the prosecution. The version of Baldev Singh accused before the trial Court recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was that of innocence and false implication. The accused, however, led no evidence in defence.

4. The trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent on the mis-joinder of four charges by holding in para 7 of the judgment as under :-

"The first submission made by the learned defence counsel is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on the ground of misjoinder of charges because the charge against the accused included four items, i.e. R. 455/- alleged to have been deposited by Bhola Singh s/o Bhag Singh Rs. 1625/- of Gurcharan Singh, Rs. 50/- of Surjit Kaur widow of Baldev Singh and Rs. 60/- of Kartar Singh son of Mukhand Singh. So, the accused had been charged qua four items of the same kind extending over the period of one year which is illegal in view of the provisions contained in Section 219, Criminal Procedure Code On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that it is sufficient for the prosecution to specify the gross amount the accused cannot be said to have been prejudiced on that account and the charge does not fall on the alleged ground of misjoinder of charges. However, I fail to agree with the learned A.P.P. because joinder of more than three distinct offences criminal breach of trust in one trial is an illegality vitiating the trial and in this view of the matter. I am fortified by a decision cited as Nga San Mya v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Rangoon, 325. So, in view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt for an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. So, the accused is, therefore, hereby acquitted for the same. File be consigned to the record room."

5. Baldev Singh, accused-respondent, has failed to turn up or engage any counsel to represent him in this appeal, although he was personally served with notice of actual hearing. Under these circumstances, there is no option but to dispose of this appeal in absence of the accused respondent.

6. There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. S.S