ORDER Seshagiri Aiyar, J. 1. At first sight, the committal order of the Magistrate reads as if he intended that all the six charges mentioned by him, namely, three of criminal breach of trust and three of falsification of accounts--all within a year--should be tried at one and the same trial by the Sessions Judge. Of course, if such a trial takes place before the Sessions Judge, namely, a trial upon all the six charges at one and the same trial, certainly it would be opposed to sec-ions 222 and 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That is the view taken in all the High Courts. See Kasi Viswanathan v. Emperor 30 M. 328 : 5 Cr. L.J. 341 : 2 M.L.T. 177 : 17 M.L.J. 141; Raman Behary Das v. Emperor 22 Ind. Cas. 729 : 41 C. 722 : 15 Cr. L.J. 153 : 18 C.W.N. 1152 and Emperor v. Mata Prasad 30 A. 351 : A.W.N. (1908) 152 : 5 A.L.J. 450 : 8 Cr. L.J. 4. I have had the advantage of looking into the charges framed by the Magistrate and I find that he has framed three distinct charges, each one containing a case of criminal breach of trust and one of falsification of accounts in respect of that breach of trust; and the committal is in respect of those three charges. 2. Under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judge can exercise his discretion of trying separately each of the three charges. As pointed out by this Court in the matter of Govinda 26 M. 592 : 2 Weir 297, it would be interfering with the discretion of the Sessions Judge if this Court should at this stage interfere with the order of the Magistrate. That is not what is expected of the High Court. 3. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong in the order of commitment. I dismiss the petition.