ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16-3-1979 passed in Criminal Revision No. 569 of 178 by the Calcutta High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence passed against Respondent G. Soman Pillai inter alia on the finding that since the said accused Pillai was charged for different offences for which the punishments were different, all the said offences could not have been tried together. Accordingly there had been a mistrial and the order of conviction passed in such trial was therefore without jurisdiction. It may be stated here that the accused was charged for offences under Section 10(p) read with Sections 9(e) and 10(e) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act and also under Section 10(3) (sic) and Section 10(n) of the said Act. Such trial was held by the Assistant Commandant of the C.R.P.F. who was also ex officio Judicial Magistrate, Second Class. It appears that at the hearing before the High Court, nobody appeared for the State. 2. Mr. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Union of India, has drawn our attention that the offence specified in clauses (e) to (1) of Section 9, if committed while not on duty, then under Section 10, such offence is treated as less heinous offence and for such offence, the punishment will be an imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with a fine which may extend to three months' pay or with both. It, therefore, appears that for all the said charges, the same quantum of punishment could have been awarded. Hence, there was no mistrial as held by the High Court because under sub-section (2) of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences are of same kind when they are punishable with same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or in other special or local law. We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court by allowing this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Union of India, however, has not been able to address the Court as to whether or not the accused had served out the sentence in the meantime. We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court by allowing this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Union of India, however, has not been able to address the Court as to whether or not the accused had served out the sentence in the meantime. If he has not served out the sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he would be released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act by furnishing the required bond under the said Act.