JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule, calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapore to show cause why the convictions of and sentences passed on the Petitioners should not be set aside. The Petitioner No. 1, Bipra Das Girl, has been convicted of an offence under sec. 406, I.P.C., and the Petitioner No. 2, Khirode Chandra Das, of an offence under sec. 406 read with sec. 116, I.P.C. The former has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and the latter to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or, in default, to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The Petitioners were tried by an Honorary Magistrate, Mohanta Radhasyam Das Adhikari. The charge drawn up against the Petitioner No. 1 is admittedly very vague. It is to the effect that he, on or before the 21st day of June 1907, committed breach of trust in respect of some deeds, which he took from the complainant, and was thereby guilty of an offence punishable under sec 406, I.P.C. There is no charge whatever against the Petitioner No. 2, who, however, has been convicted of an offence under sec. 406 read with sec. 116, I.P.C. 3. Now, the judgment of the Honorary Magistrate shows that notwithstanding the wording of the charge against the Petitioner No. 1, the Petitioners have been convicted, not of embezzling some deeds, but of embezzling amounts obtained by dealing with those deeds. We have tried to find out what the "some deeds" are; but so far as we can see, that does not appear from any part of the record or from the judgment of the Honorary Magistrate or from that of the appellate Court;. The learned pleader for the Opposite Party, however, has pointed out the deeds upon the record. He says they are three in number, one, dated the 1st July 1905, on which the Petitioner No. 1 is said to have obtained Rs. 44; another, dated the 5th June 1905, the exact amount obtained for which the learned pleader cannot tell us, but the principal of which, he says, is Rs. 108, and the third, dated the 24th October 1904, the principal of which was Rs. 50. 44; another, dated the 5th June 1905, the exact amount obtained for which the learned pleader cannot tell us, but the principal of which, he says, is Rs. 108, and the third, dated the 24th October 1904, the principal of which was Rs. 50. Now, in the first place, we may observe that none of these deeds are dated the 21st June 1907, which is the date specified in the charge as that on which the Petitioner No. 1 committed the embezzlement, and the pleader for the Opposite Party cannot tell us what really took place on the 21st June 1907. 4. The learned pleader for the Opposite Party calls attention to two other kobalas, one, dated the 23rd March 1906, on which he says, Rs. 200 were obtained, and another, bearing the same date, on which Rs. 128 were obtained. And then there is a third deed of the 15th July 1905, on which a sum of Rs. 200 is also said to have been obtained. Now the pleader for the Opposite Party says that the charge relates to the first three deeds and not to the three. All we can say is that this may be so; but it does not appear from the record or the charge. The pleader for the Opposite Party further argues that the charge is correct, and that the Petitioner has been tried for embezzling the deeds and not the money obtained on the deeds. That, however, does not appear from the judgment of the Honorary Magistrate to be the case. On the contrary, from that judgment it appears that the Petitioner was convicted of embezzling certain sum of money; but what sums he embezzled and on what dates he committed the embezzlements does not at all appear from the record or from the evidence. 5. Then, as for the Petitioner No. 2, Kherode Chandra Das, there is nothing to show what the specific charge against him was. The pleader for the Opposite Party contends that he knew very well what the charge was, because he put in a written statement denying it. That may be so, but we cannot, from the evidence, or from the record, tell what the charge was. 6. The proceedings in this case have, in our opinion, been highly irregular; and we think that the Petitioners should neither have been tried nor convicted as they have been. That may be so, but we cannot, from the evidence, or from the record, tell what the charge was. 6. The proceedings in this case have, in our opinion, been highly irregular; and we think that the Petitioners should neither have been tried nor convicted as they have been. The learned Joint Magistrate who heard the appeal against the decision of the 1st Court should have discovered the defects in the proceedings and ordered a retrial. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentences, and, as we are unable to see whether the Petitioners have committed any offence or not, we direct that a retrial should take place for any offence of embezzlement which the Petitioners may have committed. They must, however, be tried by some Magistrate, other than Mahanta Radhasyam Das Adhikari, whom the District Magistrate may select for that purpose.