JUDGMENT 1. In this case Birendra Lal Bhaduri was tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Jessore and a jury on 7 charges. Two of the charges were framed under secs. 467, 467/109 and 468, 468/109 and relate to the alleged forgery of a certain kobala. Three of the charges relate to a registered mortgage bond, and are framed, one under sec. 82 of the Registration Act--one under 467, 467/109 I. P. C. one under 471, I. P. C. The remaining two charges relate to an alleged attempt to cheat the Jessore Loan Office and are framed under sec. 471 and 417/511 I. P. C. The jury acquitted the Appellant of the charges relating to the forgery of the kobala ; but convicted him under sec. 467/109 of forging the mortgage bond, and also under 417/511 of attempting to cheat the Loan Office and under sec. 471 for dishonestly using the mortgage bond as genuine before the Sub-Registrar and the Secretary of the Loan Office with the knowledge that it was forged. But nevertheless they acquitted him of the charge under sec. 82 of the Registration Act. On behalf of the Appellant it is argued that (i) the trial as held was bad for misjoinder of charges, (ii) that the summing up was defective. Inasmuch as we think that the latter contention is well founded, and as we are of opinion that after hearing counsel on both sides, and after perusing the record that the case is one which ought to be retried. We shall not deal with the facts, except in so far as it is necessary so to do for the purpose of dealing with the question of misjoinder. 2. The allegation made by the prosecution is that an agreement was made between the Appellant Birendra on the one hand and Drobomoyee Debi on the other for the sale by the former to the latter of certain property, and that it was a term of agreement that the purchaser should grant to the vendor a putni lease of the laud comprised in the agreement for sale. It is stated that on January 28th 1902 that the Appellant executed a kobala in pursuance of this agreement and that certain sums of money were paid to him, and a considerable sum was paid in respect of a charge which existed on the property in favour of the Jessore Loan Office. It is stated that on January 28th 1902 that the Appellant executed a kobala in pursuance of this agreement and that certain sums of money were paid to him, and a considerable sum was paid in respect of a charge which existed on the property in favour of the Jessore Loan Office. The kobala was taken away by Hemanta Lal Ghosh, a servant of the vendors for registration, it was brought back about a month later by the same man, and it then bore on its back what purported to be a registration stamp and an endorsement to the effect that it was registered on 18th February. 3. It is alleged that this endorsement is a forgery and that the kobala has never been in fact registered. It is in reference to this forgery that the first two charges were framed. 4. It is next alleged that on February 1st the Appellant produced before the Sub-Registrar of Godhali a mortgage deed by which he purported to mortgage to Drobomoyee Debi (the purchaser under kobala) the identical land which had been sold under the kobala for the same sum for which the land had been sold under the kobala. This mortgage was actually registered on February 18th and at some period subsequent to February 18th an endorsement was placed on it to the effect that the mortgage money was paid off and this purported to be signed by Peary Lal, the son of the mortgagee. 5. It is alleged that this bond is a forgery and that in fact no mortgage transaction ever took place. In respect to this transaction three charges have been framed : One under the Registration Act and the others under secs. 467, 467/109 and 471, 471/109 On April 3rd it is said that the Appellant applied to the Jessore Loan Office for a loan, and on April 4th produced before the Secretary of that office the mortgage deed in question in order to show that the encumbrance was discharged, and to induce the office to grant a loan. For some reason or other the business did not go through and the money was not advanced. It was in respect of his dealings with the mortgage deed that the last two charges were framed. 6. In our opinion the objection that there has been a misjoinder must hold good. For some reason or other the business did not go through and the money was not advanced. It was in respect of his dealings with the mortgage deed that the last two charges were framed. 6. In our opinion the objection that there has been a misjoinder must hold good. We cannot sec how it can be said that the alleged forgery of the kobala and the presentation of the forged mortgage bond to the Secretary of the Loan Office can be stated to be parts of the same transaction. 7. On the facts stated for the prosecution it was open we think to the Crown to contend that the forgery of the endorsement on the kobala and the forgery of the mortgage deed formed part of one transaction of which the object was to enable the Appellant to deny the genuineness of the kobala, with a good chance of success, should that question come into controversy in a law Court in any suit against him for his rent under the putni or it might be contended that the forging of the mortgage and the presentation of the forged deed to the Loan Office was one transaction in which the object was to cheat the Loan Office. But these transactions are distinct, and we do not think charges relating to the two different transactions can be lawfully joined in one trial. 8. The whole of the evidence has been placed before us and various reasons have been urged on which it is argued that we ought to accept the case set up by the defence. The charge to the jury does not show what the facts were what the evidence adduced was or what the case of the Defendant was. The case was not put to the jury as required by law or in such a way as to enable them to exercise their functions as jurymen. We have abstained from discussing the evidence and we must not be understood to express any opinion on the facts of the case. The case was not put to the jury as required by law or in such a way as to enable them to exercise their functions as jurymen. We have abstained from discussing the evidence and we must not be understood to express any opinion on the facts of the case. On the ground that there has been a misjoinder of charges and that the charge to the jury is defective, we set aside the conviction and sentence, but inasmuch as we are of opinion that on the evidence as it appears on the record there is a case which ought to be investigated by a jury, we direct that the Appellant be retried according to law.