JUDGMENT Blank, J. - The facts from which this revision arises are conveniently given in the following extract from the judgment of the Court of appeal. The prosecution case briefly was that the accused Motilal Roy was the Assistant Secretary in charge of the Branch office at Panchbibi of the complainant Panchbibi Industrial Bank Ltd., with its Head office at Bogra. As Assistant Secretary in charge, the accused was authorised and entrusted with collection of money from debtors of the Bank and be was to discharge that trust by accounting for and crediting the collections to the Bank. The Bank got an instalment decree against one Fulbar Mondal under the terms of which Fulbar Mondal was to pay Rs. 13-9-0 as costs of the suit by Aswin 1347 B. S. and the balance of Rs. 100 in 20 equal annual kists. On the 2nd Kartik Fulbar Mondal paid Rs. 13-9-0 and the accused accepted it and granted a receipt therefor. But in violation of the trust the accused dishonestly misappropriated the said amount and did not credit it in the cash book of the Bank or otherwise account for the same. Subsequently, in course of an enquiry made by the Secretary of the Head office in connection with another matter concerning the accused the said misappropriation was detected, and the present case was started by filing a petition of complaint. The accused was committed to the Court of Session for trial under Ss. 408, 467, Penal Code and another sections. On the accused's objection as regards the joinder of the several charges the charge was split up and the accused was called upon to meet the charge under S. 408, Penal Code in the present case. The defence in substance was that there was no misappropriation, that the accused realised the sum of Rs. 13-9-0 but that owing to pressure of work he forgot to credit the amount in the cash book of the Bank. He further alleged that his pay was in arrear and that he was always ready and willing to pay up the money. In the trial Court, the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bogra, the jury unanimously found the accused guilty under S. 408, Penal Code. The trial Judge sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100 with consequential provision. In the trial Court, the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bogra, the jury unanimously found the accused guilty under S. 408, Penal Code. The trial Judge sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100 with consequential provision. On appeal to the learned Sessions Jude of Bogra various questions were canvassed including that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge ought not to have admitted the evidence of another instance of a similar omission to credit the amount of Rs. 15 to the Bank. 2. The amount of Rs. 13-9-0 with which the present charge was concerned was admittedly paid on 2nd Kartik 1347 B. S. while the amount of Rs. 15 was paid in Falgun 1348 B. S. Mr. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner submits that a single instance cannot come within S. 15, Evidence Act. In our opinion the submission is well founded. One instance cannot constitute "a series of similar occurrences" in the ordinary meaning of language. If authority were required for this proposition it may be found in the decisions of this Court in 42 Cal. 957 Amrita Lal v. Emperor ('16) 3 AIR 1916 Cal. 188 : 42 Cal. 957 : 29 I. C. 513 at p. 997 and 47 Cal. 671 Emperor v. Panchu Das ('20) 7 AIR 1920 Cal. 500 : 47 Cal. 671 : 58 I.C. 929 (F.B.) at p. 693; the latter referring to the review of the cases in the former. We are satisfied that the evidence of non-accounting for the sum of Rs. 15 in Falgun 1348 B. S. was inadmissible. Our attention has not been called to other evidence on which the jury would have been entitled to hold that the omission to account for the payment of Rs. 13-9-0 in Kartik 1347 B. S. was dishonest. Thus apart from the question whether the jury were prejudiced by the admission of the inadmissible evidence there is in our opinion no evidence on which the jury could properly have come to a finding of dishonest intention. We observe also that the learned Sessions Judge concedes towards the end of his judgment if the evidence was inadmissible it would have clearly worked to the prejudice of the accused. 3. We find it impossible to maintain the conviction. In our opinion the facts of the case are not such that there should be a retrial. We observe also that the learned Sessions Judge concedes towards the end of his judgment if the evidence was inadmissible it would have clearly worked to the prejudice of the accused. 3. We find it impossible to maintain the conviction. In our opinion the facts of the case are not such that there should be a retrial. The rule is therefore made absolute and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine if it has been paid will be refunded. Ellis, J. 4. I agree.