JUDGMENT : S.M. Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing Criminal Revision preferred by the applicant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1964. The learned Sessions Judge had on appeal convicted the appellant under Section 403 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The prosecution case was that the appellant was a Sarpanch of the Primary Co-operative Society, Govindpur, and was entrusted with Rs. 2800/- by the District Co-operative Bank, Bijnor, on behalf of the Sahkari Sangh Seohara to be distributed to certain members of the society as loan, on June 19, 1954. Prior to it, on June 9, 1956. the appellant in collusion with Sri Parmatma Saran, Secretary-cum-Supervisor, of the said Society, had purported to get three persons, Abdul Hamid, Gopi and Kishori, enrolled as members of the Society, though they had not applied for membership and a resolution was recorded in the proceedings book to that effect though it was in fact never passed by the Society. On the same day another resolution was recorded by Parmatma Saran and signed by the appellant to the effect that Rs. 2800/- be taken in trust from Sahkari Sangh Seohara by the Sarpanch and be distributed as loan to certain members of the Society including Abdul Hamid, Gopi and Kishori, and Rs. 1200/- meant for them were criminally misappropriated by the appellant and Parmatma Saran and fictitious bonds were taken in the names of Abdul Hamid, Gopi and Kishori and the appellant stood surety for them. It was thus alleged that the appellant and Parmatma Saran committed criminal breach of trust. 3. It was also the case of the prosecution that the appellant and Parmatma Saran forged the members Register and proceedings book purporting to be valuable security with intent to defraud the Society and thereby committed an offence under Section 467, I.P.C. It was also alleged that they forged the bonds in the names of Abdul Hamid, Gopi and Kishori purporting to be valuable security with the same intention and committed an offence punishable under Section 467 I.P.C. In the alternative, they were charged under Sections 408 and 468 I.P.C. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Parmatma Saran of all the charges. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Parmatma Saran of all the charges. He acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C., but found him guilty under Section 409, I.P.C. and passed a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment. 5. The learned Sessions Judge on appeal held that on the facts there could be no legal entrustment of money as the same had been obtained by the appellant by cheating. It was contended before him by the learned counsel for the State that if there was no legal entrust-ment, the appellant having received the money, he was liable to be convicted under Section 403, I.P.C. On this part of the case, the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows: "The evidence on the record shows that the appellant signed the resolution recorded in the proceedings book along with Parmatma Saran and put his seal under his signatures. He obtained the money from the Bank on the strength of the resolution dated June 9, 1964 and signed the receipt, along with Parmatma Saran and put his seal under it. He got the bonds executed in the names of fictitious persons and stood surety for them, knowing fully well that they had not taken the money. I am not prepared to believe that he acted on the asking of Parmatma Saran without knowing anything. In my opinion he knew everything and acted dishonestly and criminally misappropriated Rs. 1200/-. There was no alternative for him but to offer to pay the money when it was found that the same had not been paid to Abdul Hamid, Gopi and Kishori. These persons have entered the witness box and have stated that they were not paid anything. Thus in my opinion the offence of criminal misappropriation punishable under Section 403 I.P.C. was clearly committed by the appellant and is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Parmatma Saran appears to have been wrongly acquitted. A conviction under Section 409 I.P.C. can be altered under Section 403 I.P.C. as the latter offence is a minor offence of the former and is in fact an ingredient of it. I, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant under Section 403 I.P.C. from 409 I.P.C." 6. The appellant as stated above, filed a revision before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. I, therefore, alter the conviction of the appellant under Section 403 I.P.C. from 409 I.P.C." 6. The appellant as stated above, filed a revision before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The appellant having obtained leave from this court, the matter is before us. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Sessions Judge was not entitled to convert the conviction under Section 409, I.P.C. to one under Section 403, I.P.C. He says that it is not a minor offence within Section 238 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our view, the Sessions Judge was entitled to alter the conviction under Section 409 I.P.C., to Section 403 I.P.C. We need not decide whether an offence under Section 403, I.P.C., is a minor offence within Section 238, Cr.P.C., because we are of the opinion that the alteration of conviction under Section 409. I.P.C., to conviction under Section 403 I.P.C. can be justified under the provisions of Sections 236 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant could be convicted under Section 403, I.P.C., because on the fact of this case it would have been doubtful which of the several offences the facts proved would constitute. He could have been charged under Section 236 Criminal Procedure Code, for breach of trust under Section 409 or under Section 403, I.P.C. This Court having regard to the provisions of Sections 236 and 231, of the Criminal Procedure Code, confirmed the alteration of conviction under Section 411 and Section 414 of I.P.C. to conviction under Section 403, I.P.C. in Sahcidat Ali v. The State of Assrra, Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 1951 judgment delivered on October 1, 1959. 8. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.