Judgment :- 1. Korah Korah, the appellant in these appeals was the accused in Sessions Cases 46 and 47 of 1950 on the file of the Kottayam Sessions Court. In the former case he has been convicted for committing 'criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant' punishable under S.409 of the Travancore Penal Code and in the latter for the offence of 'falsification of accounts' punishable under S.480. In each case he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Sessions Case No. 46 a fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed on him. Criminal Appeal No. 246 is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in that case while Criminal Appeal No. 245 is against the decision in Sessions Case No. 47. 2. When these appeals came up before us we first took up for hearing Criminal Appeal No. 246 and at the conclusion of the hearing of that appeal we expressed our view that the conviction in either case will have to be quashed on account of certain defects in the charges framed by the Sessions Court and that, as then advised, we were inclined to direct the cases to be retried after the charges are suitable amended. The appellant's counsel then urged that in the circumstances of the case and at this distance of time it would be hard upon his client if the cases were to be re-tried. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept that view-point and we proceed to state briefly the considerations which induce us to quash the convictions and order re-trial. 3. The appellant was the chief cashier of the Kottayam Branch of Travancore Forward Bank Ltd., Kottayam, and the case against him was that he committed criminal misappropriation of large amounts that came into his hands in that capacity, and that with a view to screen these misappropriations, he falsified the accounts of the Bank and also committed certain forgeries. The enquiry preliminary to the committal for trial was conducted by the First Class Magistrate, Kottayam, in P.E. No. 2 of 1124 and the learned Magistrate framed the consolidated charge for all the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant and passed one committal order. The enquiry preliminary to the committal for trial was conducted by the First Class Magistrate, Kottayam, in P.E. No. 2 of 1124 and the learned Magistrate framed the consolidated charge for all the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant and passed one committal order. When the case came up before the Sessions Court, the Special Public Prosecutor who was in charge of the prosecution moved the Sessions Judge that separate charges should be framed in respect of the various offences and pointed out that a joint trial for all the offences would illegal. The misappropriations were alleged to have been committed between 3rd April and 20th May 1948 and the gross amount misappropriated came to one lakh of rupees. That gross sum was made up of four distinct items alleged to have come into the appellant's hands on different dates and the Public Prosecutor wanted one charge to be framed in respect thereof under S.219(2) of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code. The court acceded to that request and Sessions Case 46 purported to be in respect of a single charge for the gross sum misappropriated between the two dates mentioned above. The charge in Sessions Case 47 related to the alleged falsification of accounts regarding three out of the four sums of money alleged to have been misappropriated. A third charge was also framed and that under S.469 of the Travancore Penal Code, i.e., for committing 'forgery of valuable security'. That case (Sessions Case 48) would seem to have been withdrawn after the lower court disposed of the other two cases. 4. The lower court was perfectly justified in acceding to the Special Public Prosecutor's request to have the charges split up, but we fell constrained to remark that the splitting up was done in a very unnatural and artificial manner. 4. The lower court was perfectly justified in acceding to the Special Public Prosecutor's request to have the charges split up, but we fell constrained to remark that the splitting up was done in a very unnatural and artificial manner. S.219(2) certainly enables the court to have one charges with respect to the gross sum forming the subject of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money committed within the course of one year, but when besides breach of trust or misappropriation the accused also commits other offences as falsification of accounts or forgery with a view to screen the breach of trust or misappropriation the obvious course for the court is to frame a separate charge for each distinct act of breach of trust or misappropriation and to include in that charge acts of falsification of accounts or forgery connected therewith and not have one charge for the gross sum misappropriated, another charge for as many falsifications as could be tried together without offending S.231 and a third charge for forgery, if any. Unless separate charges are framed as stated above the same evidence will have to be repeated in all the cases and that would involve unnecessary waste of public time and public money. Besides if all the offences in relation to a particular sum of money are tried together the court will be in a better position to evaluate the evidence properly. However these considerations alone would not have induced us to quash the convictions and sentences now before us. 5. The charge in Sessions Case 46 out of which Criminal Appeal 246 arises purports to be one for the gross sum misappropriated between 3rd April and 20th May 1948. The distinct amounts which go to make up the gross sum are all mentioned in the charge and they are one sum of Rs. 30,000/-, another sum of Rs. 20,000/-, a third sum of Rs. 35,000/- and a fourth sum of Rs. 15,000. The prosecution case is that after the first two amounts were misappropriated and before the two latter sums came in the appellant returned Rs. 50,000/- to the Bank. After setting out these facts the charge good on to say that the gross amount misappropriated is Rs. 50,000. 35,000/- and a fourth sum of Rs. 15,000. The prosecution case is that after the first two amounts were misappropriated and before the two latter sums came in the appellant returned Rs. 50,000/- to the Bank. After setting out these facts the charge good on to say that the gross amount misappropriated is Rs. 50,000. We can appreciate that if the Bank were bringing a civil action against the appellant on the facts mentioned in the charge that would no doubt have been only for Rs. 50,000/- but after it was stated that criminal breach of trust was committed with respect to the four distinct amounts totalling in all to one lakh of rupees we are unable to understand how the charge could mention that the gross sum misappropriated is only Rs 50,000. We would not have hesitated to brush aside this as a clerical or arithmetical error but for the learned judge's final conclusion and the conviction he enters in the case. That conclusion is that the accused misappropriated Rs. 50,000/- belonging to the Bank and the conviction is with respect to that sum alone. In paragraph 44 of his judgment in Sessions Case No. 46 the learned judge has formulated his conclusion thus: "44. From a careful and anxious consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the prosecution evidence very minutely I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the accused was entrusted with the money of the Bank and that he has dishonestly misappropriated Rs. 50,000." 6. In the earlier paragraphs of judgment in dealing with the distinct items of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-. Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- he has definitely found that all those sums were misappropriated by the appellant. See paragraph 21, 27, 32 and 34 of the judgment. After having found that all the four distinct sums have been misappropriated the question that confronts us is that for which sum of Rs. 50,000 is the accused convicted and sentenced. That question has baffled the prosecution and the defence alike and we confess we are unable to solve it. Without knowing for which sum of Rs. 50,000/- i.e., the fifty thousand made up of the first two sums of Rs. 30,000 and 20,000 or the fifty thousand made up of the two latter sums of Rs. That question has baffled the prosecution and the defence alike and we confess we are unable to solve it. Without knowing for which sum of Rs. 50,000/- i.e., the fifty thousand made up of the first two sums of Rs. 30,000 and 20,000 or the fifty thousand made up of the two latter sums of Rs. 35,000 and 15,000, it is difficult for us in appeal to decide whether the conviction should be confirmed or not. We feel therefore, as mentioned earlier, constrained to set aside the conviction in sessions case No. 46 and we accordingly allow Criminal Appeal 246. 7. As for the other appeal, namely, 245, we have mentioned that the charge is for falsification of accounts and that three offences of falsification relating to three out of the four items misappropriated are included in that charge. The prosecution case is that the falsification was with a view to prevent the detection of misappropriation committed with respect of those amounts. The two charges are so inextricably connected and the main case is that relating to breach of trust or misappropriation. When that case is sent back it will not be proper for us to hear and dispose of this appeal on the merits. A decision of this appeal on the merits must certainly embarrass the court below and the parties in the re-trial on the main charge. Though the charge is for the distinct offence of falsification of accounts, the falsifications alleged are merely ancilliary to the breach of trust alleged to have been committed. Besides we have also indicated that the proper course for the court was to have all the offences connected with a specific misappropriation or breach of trust tried together instead of holding the trials in the manner the lower court did in these cases. No doubt the responsibility for deciding as to how the charges should be re-cast must rest with the lower court and the Prosecutor. We, therefore, allow this appeal as well and quash the conviction and sentence the lower court passed in Sessions Case No. 47. 8. The cases are remitted to the lower court for trial afresh on charges properly and suitably amended. In fairness to the accused we direct that the fresh trial be held by another Judge. We, therefore, allow this appeal as well and quash the conviction and sentence the lower court passed in Sessions Case No. 47. 8. The cases are remitted to the lower court for trial afresh on charges properly and suitably amended. In fairness to the accused we direct that the fresh trial be held by another Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam, will either take up the cases to his own file or send them to the other additional Sessions Judge of that court. Now that the convictions in the two cases tried have been set aside by us the learned judge trying the cases will decide what action he should take under S.237 with reference to Sessions Case No. 48 which was withdrawn. 9. We were told that the appellant was on bail before his conviction and we direct the lower court to enlarge him on such bail as it deems fit. Remanded.