( 1 ) THE applicant Ram Kishan has been convicted under Sections 325 and 379, I. P. C. and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- under Section 379, I. P. C. and to 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 325, I. P. C. by a First Class Magistrate of Jalaun, which conviction and sentence has been upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Orai.

( 2 ) IT appears that the applicant and three other persons were found stealing the crops of one Sher ali. When Sher Ali came to know of it he went to his fields and challenged the applicant and his companions. They threatened to beat him. He then went to the Sarpanch Budh Singh and reported the matter to him. Budh Singh sent for the applicant who had taken the bundle of stolen crops to his house. It is said that the applicant admitted before the Sarpanch that he had committed the theft of the crop. Thereupon Eudh Singh sent for the chowkidar Sikandar Ali and asked him to take the applicant to the police station. While the applicant was being taken there he, on the instigation of his companions, started beating Sikandar Ali and ultimately bit his nose with his teeth.

( 3 ) THE applicant admitted in his statement] that he bit the nose of Sikandar Ali but stated that he did so in his self-defence.

( 4 ) BOTH the lower Courts after a consideration of the entire evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the applicant committed theft of the crop of Sher Ali; that when he was being taken to the police station he, on the instigation of his companions, beat Sikandar AH and then bit his nose with his teeth and thereby committed the offences under Sections 379 and 325, I. P. C. They, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as above.

( 5 ) THE finding of the Courts below that the applicant committed theft of the crop of Sher Ali and bit the nose of Sikandar Ali Chowkidar when he was being taken to the police station by him, is a finding of fact and is binding on me in revision. Learned counsel for, the applicant was not able to point out anything to me in revision which would justify me to interfere with this finding of fact.

( 6 ) IT was contended before me on behalf of the applicant that the applicant and the other accused could not be tried together for the offences under Sections 379, 325 and 325/114, I. P. C. ; that there was misjoinder of offences and accused persons and therefore the entire trial was vitiated. It was further contended that the offences under Sections 379 and 325, I. P. C. were not committed in the course of the same transaction and, therefore, Section 235, Cr. P. C, was not applicable to the case It is somewhat doubtful if the two offences under Sections 325 and 379, I. P. C. were committed in the course of the same transaction. After committing the theft the applicant had gone away and he was subsequently sent for by the Sarpanch on receipt of some information that he had committed theft and thereafter he was taken to the police station. Section 537, Cr. P. C. , as amended, clearly says that no trial shall be vitiated on account of mis-joinder of charges unless it has caused prejudice to the accused. It was contended for the applicant that Section 537 was applicable only to misjoinder of offences and not to misjoinder of both offences and accused persons. I am afraid I am not able to accept this contention. Sections 233 to 240, Cr. P. C. deal with joinder of charges whether against the same person in respect of different offences or whether against different persons in respect of different offences. It is immaterial whether the misjoinder is in respect of different offences committed by the same person or in respect of different offences committed by different persons. The words used in section 537 are not misjoinder of offences or accused persons. They are misjoinder of charges. In my opinion these words clearly include misjoinaer of offences or of accused persons. In this connection reference may be made to w. Slaney v. State of M. P. , 1