JUDGMENT Bartley, J. - The Appellant Akbar Hossain was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the 24-Parganas in accordance with the unanimous verdict of the jury on a charge under sec. 477 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the case against him was this that he entered into negotiations with a third party to sell certain land belonging to himself. During the progress of these negotiations, one Abdul Malek produced a document purporting to be an ekrarnama executed many years previously, entitling the said Abdul Malek to a half-share in the proceeds of any sale of the land. The Appellant went to the person in whose custody this document was, and had the document handed over to him for the purpose of comparison with a copy which he had previously taken. He is then said to have torn up the original document. 2. Now, in dealing with the facts outlined above, the learned Judge directed the jury as follows:--He said that the document might be a forgery, it might be an agreement to which the accused was no party, but nevertheless, if it purported to create a right, and if the accused destroyed it fraudulently or dishonestly, he would be still liable. The learned Judge went on to say that the jury were not concerned with the question, whether the document was a genuine document or a registered document, or if it actually created a legal right. In a later part of his charge, the learned Judge further directed the jury that they might take it for granted for the sake of argument that the document was a forgery, but even in such a case when the existence of the said document was brought to the notice of the accused, he should have put forward at the proper time and in the proper place, a case that it could not be enforced, and that he had no right to destroy it. 3. The learned Judge has clearly committed a serious error of law in directing the jury in such a fashion. He practically told the jury that it did not matter whether the document was a forgery or not, and that even if it was a forgery, that factor could make no difference to the charge brought against the Appellant. This is clearly wrong. He practically told the jury that it did not matter whether the document was a forgery or not, and that even if it was a forgery, that factor could make no difference to the charge brought against the Appellant. This is clearly wrong. The offence with which the accused was charged was not that of destroying a document which purported to be a valuable security. The charge was that he did so fraudulently and dishonestly. 4. In deciding whether the action of the accused was either fraudulent or dishonest, that is to say, whether he intended to commit fraud upon anybody or to cause wrongful loss to anybody, it was clearly essential for the jury to decide whether the document in question was a genuine document or a forged one. If it was a forgery, it was of no value to anybody, and no wrongful loss would be caused by its destruction. Similarly if it was a forgery, no fraud could be committed upon anybody by doing away with it. 5. The learned Judge entirely failed to appreciate this aspect of the case, and the result has been that his charge to the jury has given a completely erroneous impression as to what the law actually is. 6. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to set aside the verdict of the jury, and the conviction and sentence passed thereon. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant and the sentence passed upon him are set aside, and the case is remanded for retrial before the Court of Sessions in accordance with law. Pending the disposal of the case before the lower Court the Appellant will remain on the same bail as he is at present. Henderson, J. I agree.