Judgement Petition for special leave to appeal from convictions upon a trial before Twomey J. (April 11, 1913) and a jury and sentences and from a judgment (June 20, 1913) of the Chief Court upon questions reserved for the decision of that Court. The facts as appearing from the petition were shortly as follows. The petitioners were two directors and the general manager of the Bank of Burma, Limited, a company incorporated in Burma under the Indian Companies Act, 1882. By an order of the Chief Court made on June 27, 1912, the company was ordered to be wound up and an official liquidator was appointed. The official liquidator filed a complaint in the Court of the district magistrate of Rangoon alleging that the petitioners had by knowingly issuing a false balance-sheet for the half-year ending June 30, 1911 (issued on or about August 1, 1911), and by continuing to advertise the bank as a prosperous and going concern up to the time of its close, dishonestly induced certain persons to deposit money with the bank. The district magistrate having held an inquiry on January 28, 1913, framed against each of the petitioners a charge with three heads in which he charged them that they did respectively " by means of a false and fraudulent balance-sheet and by false advertisements" falsely and fraudulently induce three named persons to deposit moneys with the Bank of Burma, and he committed them for trial by the Court of Session on these charges. In the magistrates Court the balance-sheet was attacked on four specific grounds. On February 17, 1913, the petitioners were put upon their trial at Rangoon before Twomey J. and a jury. The judge struck out that part of the charge which referred to advertisements on the ground that 17 Law Rep. 40 Ind. App. 241 ( 1912- 1913) George Staunton Clifford V. King-Emperor 118 there was no evidence before the magistrate that the persons named had seen them. The judge struck out that part of the charge which referred to advertisements on the ground that 17 Law Rep. 40 Ind. App. 241 ( 1912- 1913) George Staunton Clifford V. King-Emperor 118 there was no evidence before the magistrate that the persons named had seen them. On the second day of the trial the learned judge of his own motion amended the charges by adding the words "and by intentionally keeping the bank open as a going concern after it had ceased to be solvent." Up to the close of the prosecution no indication was given that the grounds of attack upon the balance-sheet had been enlarged beyond the four grounds alleged before the magistrate, or that the petitioners were being charged with falsely and fraudulently shewing as debts considered to be good debts which they knew were bad or doubtful. Only one debt of this character was specifically referred to by the prosecution and the debtor was thereupon called by the. petitioners as a witness. The learned judge in his summing up stated that the fundamental issue in the case was whether the balance-sheet was false in taking as good assets "a large amount of debts which could not honestly be considered as good debts " and in treating as assets unpaid interest upon those debts. The learned judge specified to the jury debts amounting to about 22 lakhs as to which he directed them to consider whether the petitioners should not have regarded these debts as bad or doubtful. The petition alleged that this was the first time in the course of the trial on which these debts were specified. The petition also complained of the summing up of the learned judge upon other grounds and objected that certain evidence had been admitted improperly. On April 11, 1913, the jury returned a general verdict of guilty against each of the petitioners on all the charges. The learned judge passed sentences on the first petitioner of eight months rigorous imprisonment on each charge and upon each of the other petitioners sentences of six months rigorous imprisonment on each charge, the sentences in the case of each of the petitioners to run consecutively. The petitioners applied to reserve and refer certain questions of law for the decision of the Chief Court of Burma under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V. of 1898), s. 434. The petitioners applied to reserve and refer certain questions of law for the decision of the Chief Court of Burma under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V. of 1898), s. 434. Their application included several questions, of which, however, the learned judge refused to refer any but four, which included the question whether the amendment of the charge in the course of the trial had prejudiced the petitioners. On June 20, 1913, arguments upon the questions so reserved were heard together by three judges, including Twomey J., who had presided at the trial, and judgment was delivered deciding all the questions reserved against the petitioners. By this judgment the Court held (inter alia) that the question whether the principal debts were good or bad was involved in the charge, and that having regard to passages in the summing up they were unable to hold that the jury had found their verdict upon the ground of the charge added by amendment. Sir R. Finlay, K.C., and Coltman, for the petitioners. The amendment of the charge by the judge during the trial was bad in law, and the verdict was bad as being a general verdict upon a charge part of which was bad in law. The learned judge ought not to have directed the jury to consider whether a large amount of the debts shewn in the balance-sheet should not have been treated as bad or doubtful. These debts had not been specified during the trial, and the petitioners had no notice that this was an allegation which they had to meet. The summing up was unsatisfactory in other respects and evidence was wrongly received. The sentences passed were in contravention of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 71. Consecutive sentences should not have been passed in respect of the separate charges which were really part of the same offence. The Crown did not appear upon the hearing of the petition. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C. Their Lordships do not propose in this case to recommend that leave 17 Law Rep. 40 Ind. App. 241 ( 1912- 1913) George Staunton Clifford V. King-Emperor 119 to appeal be given. Their functions are not to sit as a Court of Criminal Appeal, and it would be contrary to their constitutional duty to assume that position. 40 Ind. App. 241 ( 1912- 1913) George Staunton Clifford V. King-Emperor 119 to appeal be given. Their functions are not to sit as a Court of Criminal Appeal, and it would be contrary to their constitutional duty to assume that position. A Court of Criminal Appeal can go into questions of evidence and into questions of procedure, and can deal with the case on the same footing as an ordinary Court of Appeal. Their Lordships functions on the other hand are limited by the principle laid down in Dillets Case (12 App. Cas. 459.) to something much more narrow, namely, this that if they find that what has been done has been grossly contrary to the forms of justice, or violates fundamental principles, then they have power to interfere. But in the present case they think there was evidence to go to the jury on all the matters which have been dealt with, and it would be contrary to their duty to express any opinion as to whether in that state of things the verdict found by the jury was a right one, or the summing up a perfect one. As regards the sentences, it is obvious that the question is one of form only. The learned judge has given three periods of eight months in one case and three periods of .six months in another, taking each offence as a separate offence. Technically, their Lordships think that these were separate offences, and moreover it would have been possible to give a longer term upon any one or the whole of the charges in question. The analogy between this case and other cases which constantly occur in criminal jurisprudence is a perfect one, and their Lordships see no difficulty in treating these as separate offences. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the petition ought to be dismissed.