JUDGMENT Bartley, J. - This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Bakarganj and on the complainant to show cause why the conviction of the Petitioner under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside. The Rule was issued upon the ground that the trial had been vitiated by misjoinder of charges. The facts were that the Petitioner was placed on his trial upon three charges under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with three alleged offences committed by him in connection with his duties as a money-order clerk in a post office. It was alleged that on three separate occasions he committed criminal breach of trust with regard to three sums of money and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for nine mouths and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, an appeal against which order had been dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Bakarganj, (Mr. P.C. De), on the 28th April, 1941 handed over the counter to him for the purpose of purchasing money-orders for transmission to other people. 2. In connection with the third charge of criminal breach of trust there was in addition a charge under sec. 477A of the Indian Penal Code to the effect that the Petitioner mutilated a money-order receipt and thereby committed an offence under that section. 3. The Petitioner was convicted upon the three charges under sec. 409, but acquitted of the charge under sec. 477A of the Indian Penal Code, the reason given for the acquittal being that it was for lack of proper sanction. 4. We are of opinion that the ground on which this Rule was issued is a valid ground and that the Rule must accordingly be made absolute. There can be no doubt that the Petitioner could have been tried jointly on the three charges framed under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. There can also be no doubt that under the provisions of sec. 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he could have been tried jointly for one offence of criminal breach of trust and for the offence under sec. 477A in that these two offences were so connected as to form part of the same transaction. The difficulty, however, arises in the fact that he was actually put on trial upon four charges and the case was therefore excluded from the scope of sec. 477A in that these two offences were so connected as to form part of the same transaction. The difficulty, however, arises in the fact that he was actually put on trial upon four charges and the case was therefore excluded from the scope of sec. 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither in our opinion could it be said that these three separate offences of breach of trust which occurred on different dates and were committed against different persons could possibly, be held to form part of the same transaction as the mutilation of a receipt in connection with one of those offences. 5. It was suggested on behalf of the Crown that in point of fact there had been no trial of the accused upon more than three charges, because he was acquitted on the charge under sec. 477A for lack of necessary sanction. We are not, however, disposed to give effect to this contention. The case was tried as a warrant case. Evidence was led in support of all the four charges subsequently framed and the Petitioner was called upon to plead and did plead to the charge framed under sec. 477A of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances we are unable to say that there was no trial upon that charge. 6. This Rule is accordingly made absolute. The convictions of the Petitioner and the sentences passed upon him are set aside and the case is remanded to the Court below upon the three subsisting charges under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code properly framed in accordance with law. 7. Pending the disposal of the case the Petitioner will remain as at present. Lodge, J. I agree.