JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner was tried and convicted under secs. 384 and 352, I. P. C, and in the charge that was drawn up under sec. 384 he was charged as follows: That you, on or about the 15th or 16th day of January 1905, at Khayarbari, committed extortion of a muchalika and of Rs. 25, respectively, from the complainant. A rule was issued calling on the District Magistrate of Dinajpur and on the complainant to show cause why the conviction of this applicant and sentence on him should not be set aside and a fresh trial ordered on the ground that the joinder of the muchalika and the payment of Rs. 25 in one charge was contrary to the provisions of the law, and also on the ground that the joinder of the charges of the three matters charged was contrary to the provisions of the law as not forming part of the same transaction; and, thirdly, on the ground that the payment of the Rs. 25 did not satisfy the provisions of the Penal Code regarding extortion. 2. Assuming that these charges, as the Magistrate has said in his explanation, arose out of one and the same transaction and that the claim for Rs. 25 did constitute extortion, we think that the neglect to observe sec. 233, Cr. P. C, must be pronounced fatal to the case according to the ruling, Subramania Iyer v. The King-Emperor 5 C. W. N. 866 : s. c. I. L. R. 25 Mad. 61 (1901),: because under that section there shall be a separate charge for every distinct offence. 3. We, therefore, make the rule absolute, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that this applicant be retried and the retrial be held by another Magistrate. Pending the trial, Petitioner will remain on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.