JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The petitioner, Kamal Bhatia, hereinafter referred to as the accused, upon having been tried for the offences under Sections 409 and 468, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, stands convicted vide judgment dated 26.11.1985 for such offences and sentenced as under : Sr. No. Offence Sentence 1. 409, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. 468, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Magistrate has been affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, vide judgment dated 4.3.1997 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3-N/10 of 1986. 2. The accused has thus come up before this Court by way of the present revision petition preferred through Superintendent Jail, Nahan, assailing the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the two Courts below. 3. The prosecution story in brief may be thus stated. The accused is the ex-Manager of Nahan Ceramics Limited, Paonta. While working as Manager of the said company during the year 1971-72, he is alleged to have drawn a sum of Rs. 4,130/- on 27.6.1972 vide two cheques from the account of the company with H.P. Co-operative Bank for payment of transportation charges. He accounted for only to the extent of Rs. 1,200/-. The balance amount of Rs. 2,930/-was thus misappropriated by him. 4. In June and July 1971, the accused had drawn a sum of Rs. 2,593/- from the above said bank account of the company vide two cheques for payment to Messrs. Stark and Company, New Delhi. He, however, did not make the payment to the said company and had misappropriated the amount. 5. On 3.7.1971 a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was withdrawn by him from the abovesaid bank account for payment to Messrs. Pyare Lal Mehandiratta, Yamunanagar. No payment was made by him to the said frim. He was found to have forged and fabricated the record by showing a sum of Rs. 653.80 P as having been paid to the said firm. 6. 1,500/- was withdrawn by him from the abovesaid bank account for payment to Messrs. Pyare Lal Mehandiratta, Yamunanagar. No payment was made by him to the said frim. He was found to have forged and fabricated the record by showing a sum of Rs. 653.80 P as having been paid to the said firm. 6. On 27.7.1972 and 27.9.1972 respectively, the accused had drawn the sums of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,500/- from the bank for payment to Messrs. Eskay Engineers, Paonta Sahib. No payment was made by him to the said firm and he was found to have misappropriated the amounts. 7. The accused was found to have received a sum of Rs. 100/ - from Messrs Kishore and Company, Paonta Sahib. He failed to account for the said amount and thus was found to have misappropriated the same. 8. The accused has received the-supply of 362.5 tons of coal in his capacity as the Manager of the factory. He, however, had accounted for only 158.9 tons of coal. The remaining quantity of 203.6 tons of coal was found to have been sold by him in black market and the sale proceeds misappropriated by him. 9. The accused was also found to have forged the record of the company in his capacity of being the Manager thereof. 10. Four cases came to be registered against the accused at Police Station, Paonta Sahib vide F.I.R. Nos. 107, 108, 115 and 116 of 1972. After necessary investigation, four separate challans in respect of each of the four abovesaid F.I.Rs. came to be presented before the learned Magistrate and these came to be registered as criminal case Nos. 39/2 of 1976, 40/2 of 1976, 41/2 of 1976 and 109/2 of 1977 on his files. 11. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 4.9.1978 purported to have been passed under Section 218, Code of Criminal Procedure, consolidated all the four cases and directed that the accused be tried jointly in all the four cases. A joint charge in respect of all the four cases was, therefore, framed in criminal case No. 109/2 of 1977 and it was further directed that evidence shall be recorded only in one case, that is, case No. 109/2 of 1977 in respect of all the four cases. 12. A joint charge in respect of all the four cases was, therefore, framed in criminal case No. 109/2 of 1977 and it was further directed that evidence shall be recorded only in one case, that is, case No. 109/2 of 1977 in respect of all the four cases. 12. The learned Magistrate vide his single judgment dated 26.11.1985 recorded in criminal case No. 109/2 of 1997 disposed of all the four cases by convicting and sentencing the accused as aforesaid. However, while doing so, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record only one conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 409 and 468, Indian Penal Code, without specifying as to in which case out of the four cases, such conviction and sentence were recorded. Resultantly, only a single appeal was filed by the accused against the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 4.3.1987 and maintained the conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Magistrate. 13. It has been contended on behalf of the accused that part-B of Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, containing Sections 218 to 224, though permits joinder of charges, does not permit consolidation of cases and that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error amounting to an illegality in consolidating the four cases against the accused for the purpose of trial. Besides, while framing a joint charge only in one case another illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate inasmuch as more than three offences of the same kind purporting to have been committed during the period March 1971 to September 1972, that is, a period exceeding one year have been joined. 14. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, has contended that under the proviso to Section 218, Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate could try all or any number of the charges framed against the accused in a joint trial. It was further contended that the proviso to Section 218, Code of Criminal Procedure, carves out an exception to the main section apart from other exceptions contained in Sections 219, 220, 22 1 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as such, the four cases were rightly consolidated by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of a joint trial of the accused in respect of the offences charged against him. Section 218, of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :— "218. Separate charges for distinct offences.—(1) For every distinct offences of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately : Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.” Section 219, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further provides:— “219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.—(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws; Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence." 15. The general rule contained in Section 218, quoted above, is that for every distinct offence, of which a person is accused of, a separate charge shall be framed and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in cases falling within the exceptions as contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223, Code of Criminal Procedure. The general rule contained in Section 218, quoted above, is that for every distinct offence, of which a person is accused of, a separate charge shall be framed and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in cases falling within the exceptions as contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223, Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the proviso to Section 218 above, a provision has been made for a joint trial for any number of charges, if so desired by the accused by an application made in writing in this behalf. However, such joint trial can be held only if the Magistrate is of the opinion that such accused is not likely to be prejudiced thereby. The proviso is a part of sub-section (1) of Section 2 18 and carves out an exception to the main provision. Its operation and function is limited to a case which otherwise does not fall under the main Section 218(1). Sub-section (2) of Section 218, Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The result is that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 218 is controlled by and has to be read in conformity with the provisions contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. In other words, the later sections, this is, Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 restrict the operation of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 218 will operate only within the field covered by the later Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. Therefore, unlimited number of charges cannot be tried together only on the ground that a request in that behalf was made by the accused. Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits joint trial for the offences of the same kind not exceeding three and committed within a period of twelve months. 16. In Jodhpur Woollen Mils Ltd. and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, (1995 Crl.L.J. 769), the accused who were the Joint Managing Director and the Commercial Officer of a company during the period of thirty-three months, that is, from March 1984 to December 1986, had deducted the employees contribution towards the provident fund from their salary. 16. In Jodhpur Woollen Mils Ltd. and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, (1995 Crl.L.J. 769), the accused who were the Joint Managing Director and the Commercial Officer of a company during the period of thirty-three months, that is, from March 1984 to December 1986, had deducted the employees contribution towards the provident fund from their salary. They had deposited such contributions in the respective provident fund accounts. Though they were required to deposit the matching employers contribution within fifteen days from the close of the month, they failed to do so. They were thus found to have committed thirty-three offences punishable under Sections 14 and 14-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Inspector, Provident Fund, presented eleven complaints in respect of the thirty-three distinct offences against the accused before the Court. Each of such complaints contained three offences of the same kind committed by the accused within three months. During the pendency of the proceedings, two applications were moved by the accused for the consolidation of all the eleven cases and to hold a joint trial. The learned Magistrate rejected the applications and refused to consolidate the cases. The matter was, therefore, carried before the High Court of Rajasthan by way of a criminal revision petition. 17. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after referring to the various provisions contained in Sections 218, 219, 220, 221 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure held : “.....In the present case, though the offence committed by the accused persons are of the same kind but they were committed on different occasions spread over between March 1984 to December 1986. In a series of complaints of offences alleged to have been committed by the accused on thirty-three different occasions, it is not permissible to hold a single trial and it is only permissible to try the charges in group of three. Criminal cases cannot be consolidated and tried together like a civil suit except within the limitations laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. In each of these cases, pending before the trial Court, the complaints have been filed relating to three charges. Criminal cases cannot be consolidated and tried together like a civil suit except within the limitations laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure. In each of these cases, pending before the trial Court, the complaints have been filed relating to three charges. Every non-payment of the employers contribution by the 15th day of the next month constitute a separate offence and, therefore, only three of such charges can be tried together and the thirty-three charges of non-payment of employers contribution cannot be tried jointly in one trial. A joint trial for thirty-three, charges spread over for thirty-three months will not be justified under Section 218(1) and, therefore, these eleven cases for thirty-three charges cannot be consolidated.” 18. In State of Haryana v. Ram Lal, (1992 Cri. L.J. 2482), a case for misappropriation and embezzlement of funds was registered against the accused vide one single F.I.R. The embezzlement was found to have taken place during the period July 1963 to June 1973. After investigation, six separate challans were presented in the Court. After charges were framed separately in all the six cases, at the stage of recording evidence, all the cases came to be consolidated and evidence was recorded only in one case. Ultimately, the accused was acquitted in all the six cases vide one single judgment. The State went up in appeal before the High Court assailing the acquittal of the accused. Only one appeal qua the six cases was filed. The Division Bench held : "It is not clear as to in which of the six cases instituted against Ram Lal, present appeal has been filed. If the State was to challenge the order of acquittal in all the six cases, six separate appeals were required to be filed relating to matters covered by such cases. One appeal in six cases was not competent.” Though, in the above said case, the legality of the order of consolidation of six cases was not in issue arid no findings on this question were recorded, the ratio laid therein is material to show that great prejudice has been caused to the accused by his conviction and sentence as recorded by the two courts below without there being anything to show as to in which of the four cases instituted against him, he has been convicted and sentenced. The accused was thus deprived of his right to prefer appeal in the other cases. 19. In addition to the above, the following irregularities/illegalities have been committed in the present case: (a) As against the permissible limit of three offences of similar kind, as many as twelve offences under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, have been joined for the purpose of joint trial; and (b) the period during which these offences are alleged to have been joined exceeds one year. Resultantly, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and are liable to be .set aside inasmuch as the whole trial stands vitiated in law. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused are, therfore, quashed and set aside. 20. The question that next arises is how to deal with the accused at this stage. Ordinarily in a matter of this kind, the proper course would be to remand the case to the learned trial Court for trial afresh in accordance with law. However, in the instant case, recourse to such a course is not being taken in view of the fact that the offences are alleged to have been committed in the year 1971-72. During the period of the last 26/27 years, the accused has already suffered the ordeal of the criminal prosecution. He has also remained in jail after the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Besides, remand of the case of this stage would also be against public interest and the constitutional mandate that criminal trials should be conducted with utmost expedition since inordinate delay in such matters are likely to defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, in my view the only proper order that is called for on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is to direct that the four cases against the accused be now filed and the proceedings be dropped. It is ordered accordingly. Order accordingly. -