JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant has been convicted of offences punishable under Ss. 477A and 218, I.P.C., and sentenced to 12 months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The Appellant was put on his trial on several charges, and it is contended that the trial is bad for misjoinder of charges. In order to understand this contention and the nature of the charges, the following facts may be shortly stated:The accused was the Sub-Inspector in charge of the Netrokona Police Station. On the 7th February last a prostitute named Kamini died in Netrokona town at 2 p.m., in the afternoon. She had executed a registered deed of gift covering most of her properties to one Purna. The case for the prosecution is that on her death the Sub-Inspector took charge of the properties left by Kamini and removed them to the Thana shortly after her death A telegram was sent to Purna who was 17 miles away and he came to the Thana on the morning of the 8th between 10 and 11. That evening he took away the properties claimed by him except three specific ornaments, a gold gopahar, a pair of good ananta, and silver rates, which were retained by the Sub-Inspector. Entries had been made in the Police General Diary recording that this property of Kamini had been taken charge of, but the pages containing those entries were torn out and fresh pages were written from which it will appear that the property was never taken to the Thana and that it was made over to Purna at 10 p.m., on the 7th February. 3. On these allegations, the accused was charged, firstly, with haring committed criminal misappropriation of the three ornaments belonging to Kamini which had not been delivered to Purna. He was, secondly, charged with having framed the record in a manner which he knew to be incorrect, namely, the entry No. 173 which related to the delivery of Kamini's property to Puma. He was, thirdly, charged under S. 477A with having destroyed the original entries in the General Diary and with having altered the entry No. 173 already referred to. He was, thirdly, charged under S. 477A with having destroyed the original entries in the General Diary and with having altered the entry No. 173 already referred to. Further there were three charges of criminal breach of trust by a public servant punishable under S. 409, the first relating to the properties left by Kamini and not covered, by the deed of gift in favour of Purna, the second relating to the three specific ornaments already mentioned and the third relating to the properties mentioned in the deed of gift. 4. It is contended that the offence described as punishable under S. 218 differs from the offence charged as punishable under sec. 477A. I.P.C. Naturally there must be some difference in the charges as the facts are set out so as to make different sections applicable. In the former of these charges, the charge relates to the framing of the record in a manner known to be incorrect using the actual words of the section. In the charge under S. 477A the words of the section are again used and the accused is charged with having destroyed certain entries in the original pages and also having altered one entry. We think that as regards these charges they fall under two separate definitions of the law and the accused can be jointly charged and tried at one trial for those offences under S. 235. We also think that the joinder of the other charges is covered by the provisions of that section. All the charges relate to acts which are 30 connected together as to form one transaction. The charge of criminal misappropriation relating to the same articles as the charge of criminal breach of trust by a public servant and the other charges of criminal breach of trust in respect of the property covered by the deed of gift and those not covered by the deed of gift could be legally joined and tried at one trial. 5. It is also contended that there has been misdirection in stating to the jury what was the defence set up by the accused. The accused was defended and he made a statement in Court. In that statement the main line of defence was that he had several enemies and they conspired to get him into trouble. 5. It is also contended that there has been misdirection in stating to the jury what was the defence set up by the accused. The accused was defended and he made a statement in Court. In that statement the main line of defence was that he had several enemies and they conspired to get him into trouble. But in his defence no answer was given to the specific allegations that were made against him. It is therefore not clear what his actual defence was on the points where there has been said to be misdirection. We find that during the course of his summing up the learned Judge made a mistake as regards a certain date and was corrected by the learned pleader for the defence and he admitted his error We cannot understand if he had misdirected the jury as is now alleged that mistake should not have been corrected then and there. We are not satisfied there was any misdirection in this respect. 6. The other points taken in this appeal are based on an affidavit that has been filed by one of the pleaders who appeared on behalf of the Appellant at the Sessions trial. It appears that after the jury had retired to consider their verdict they wished for further direction on certain points of law. They were first seen by the Judge in his private chamber and they there asked him one question on a point of law. The Judge then sent for the pleaders, and on their arrival they pointed out to him that further directions to the jury should be made in open Court. The Judge and the jury then went into the Court room and certain questions which were put by the jury and the answers given by the Judge were duly recorded. We hold that this fact that one question was put to the Judge not in open Court was no more than an irregularity and did not vitiate the trial. 7. It is further contended that the Judge did not comply with the provisions of S. 303, Cr.P.C., since he did not ask the jury questions to ascertain what their verdict was on the three charges under S. 409, I.P.C. The verdict of the jury as recorded is "not guilty" under Ss. 409 and 403, but "guilty" under Ss. 218 and 477A. That seems to us a sufficiently clear verdict. 409 and 403, but "guilty" under Ss. 218 and 477A. That seems to us a sufficiently clear verdict. The jury were taken by the Judge and rightly taken to mean that they acquitted the accused on all charges under S. 409 and the charge under S. 403, I.P.C. and there was no necessity for any question to ascertain what their verdict was. It is said in the affidavit that the learned Judge asked the jury some questions as to their reasons and they gave some answers which have not been recorded. This has been denied by the learned Judge and we must accept his statement. It is pointed out to us that in the judgment passed by the Judge after the verdict was recorded he has given the reasons of the jury for their verdict and that this indicates that the statement in the affidavit is correct. We are unable to accept this contention. The Judge remarks that the jury found the accused not guilty on charges under Ss. 409 and 403, I.P.C., holding clearly that it is not possible to accept the evidence as to the particular way in which the items of property were disposed of by the accused. To us the words used by the Judge indicate that he is not repeating what he has heard from the jury but is stating what he believes to have been the motive which actuated them. 8. We hold therefore that there are no grounds for interfering with the verdict of the jury and dismiss this appeal.