Harish Chandra, J.

[1] These are two applications in revision arising out of Sessions Trials Nos. 35 and 36 of 1951 pending in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Banaras, on behalf of Sri Kapildeo Upadhya. He was an employee of the Water Works Department at Banaras and charges under Sections" 466, 409 and 477A, Penal Code have been framed against him in each case. The Committing Magistrate, when he committed these cases to the Court of Sessions, charged him in S. T. No. 35 with three offences of forgery alleged to have been committed by the applicant with respect to certain documents between 28-2-1947 and 13-3-1947 and also with having committed the offences of falsification of accounts and criminal breach of trust between the same dates. In Sessions Trial No. 36, he similarly charged him with having committed three offences of forgery with respect to certain documents between 1-11-1945 and 31-3-1946. He charged him in this case also with offences under Sections 477A and 409 said to have been committed between the same dates. These other offences are said to be connected with the offences of forgery with which the applicant was charged in each case.

[2] Tne learned Sessions Judge after recording some evidence, altered and realtered the charges so that the period during which the offences in the one case are alleged to have been committed now is between 28-2-1947 and 27-2-1948 in one case & between 1-11-194~5 and 31-10-1946 (sic). It is said that the procedure adopted by him was illegal.

[3] Three points are urged before me:

1. that under Section 227, Criminal P. C. the Court can alter or add to any charge only once and not more than once;

2. that the three offences of the same kind with which the applicant has been charged cannot be combined with three offences of other kinds in the same trial; and

3. that a charge could not be altered by the Sessions Judge so as to go beyond the scope of the enquiry in the Court of the Committing Magistrate.

[4] The language of Section 227 is very wide and does not seem to indicate that any alteration or addition to a charge can be made only once and I do not think the procedure adopted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was in any manner contrary to the provisions of that section.

[5] Section 234 authorises the court to charge an accused person with and try him at one trial for any number of offences of the same kind not exceeding three in number. Section 235 provides that :

"If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence."

It is not denied that the applicant could have been tried at one trial for offences under Sections 466, 477A and 409, Penal Code, if the alleged acts were so connected together as to form the same transaction, as in the present case. What is objected to is that three offences under Section 466 could not be combined at one trial with three offences of the same kind under Section 477A and three offences of the same kind under Section 409. In other words, it is said that Sections 234 and 235, Criminal P. C. are exclusive of one another and cannot be combined for the purpose of the trial of an accused person at one trial.

[6] A number of cases has been cited before me. But I need not refer to them all. For the matter has been set at rest by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in -- 'Bex v. Daya Shankar', AIR 1950 All 167 (A), in which it was held that charges for criminal misappropriation with respect to three items could be linked with three charges for falsification of accounts arising out of the same three transactions. This decision was arrived at by the Court on a consideration of a number of cases that were cited before it.

The following is reproduced from the Judgment delivered by my brother Agarwala, J. : "The principle underlying Sections 235 and 236 is that if more offences than one