JUDGMENT Ganga Nath, J. - This is an application in revision by Bhu Prakash against his conviction and sentences under Sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C. 2. The Applicant was a 'sazawal' employed by the Government to realize rent. His duty was to realize money and to issue receipts to the persons paying it and to deposit it in the Government treasury. The charge against the Applicant was that on three occasions he realized Rs. 41-3-9, Rs. 141 ana Rs. 82, but deposited only Rs. 36-3-3 (out of Rs. 41-3-9), Rs. 125 out of Rs. 141 and Rs. 73 out of Rs. 82. He issued receipts for the correct amounts to the persons who paid these sums, but in the counterfoils he entered sums which were deposited by him in, the treasury. He was, therefore, charged with three distinct offences of criminal breach of trust u/s 409 I.P.C. in respect of the three items received by him, and with three distinct offences of falsification of accounts u/s 477-A I.P.C. He was tried and convicted on these charges. 3. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the Applicant that the trial was illegal, as there was a misjoinder of charges. 4. u/s 233 Code of Criminal Procedure for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. Sections 236 and 239 obviously have no bearing. The present case is not covered by Sections 234 and 235, Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not cover the case, because the offences of falsification of accounts are not of the same kind as the offences of criminal breach of trust. Section 235 Code of Criminal Procedure does not cover it, because the falsification of accounts connected with one act of criminal breach of trust cannot be said to form part of the same transaction with the other criminal breaches of trust. Section 235 Code of Criminal Procedure does not cover it, because the falsification of accounts connected with one act of criminal breach of trust cannot be said to form part of the same transaction with the other criminal breaches of trust. Each act of criminal breach of trust may, no doubt, be said to form part of the same transaction with the falsification of accounts made with a view to conceal that act of breach of trust; but it does not form part of the same transaction with the other breaches of trust and falsifications which were committed on altogether different occasions. 5. The same view was taken in Shujauddin Ahmad v. Emperor (1928) 20 ALJ 320. There the accused was convicted of the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant in respect of three items and also of falsification of accounts in order to conceal the defalcation u/s 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. It was held that Section 234 or 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not warrant such a joinder of charges. 6. In Nagendra Nath Sen Vs. Emperor, AIR 1932 Cal 486 it was held that Three offences of criminal breach of trust may be tried together and three offences of falsification of accounts may be tried together. But an offence of criminal breach of trust is not of the same kind as an offence of falsification of accounts. Therefore the trial of two or more charges of criminal breach I of trust cannot legally be joined with two or more charges of falsification of accounts. 7. A similar view was taken in Emperor Vs. Manant K. Mehta, AIR 1926 Bom 110 . 8. The trial in this case was illegal. 9. I, therefore, set aside the conviction an d sentences and order a new trial on a charge framed according to law.