Gokul Prasad, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the convictions in two trials of the appellant under Sections 408 and 477A, respectively, of the Indian Penal Code. The accused war, at first, tried in a single trial under both years' rigorous imprisonment. That trial was set side by this Court on the ground that a joint trial like that was illegal. The Sessions Judge thereupon tried the accused separately under etch of the two sections aforesaid and has convicted him as stated above. The accused comes up here in appeal and one of the points raised by him here, which was raided before Mr. Pullan, is that he has, as the result of the separation of the trials under the two different sections, been sentenced to a heavier sentence than he was sentenced before. As to this aspect of the case, the learned Sessions Judge observes as follows:--'I have been asked to recommend the Local Government to order that the sentences in this case should run concurrently with those in the connected case under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. As, however, the question of sentence will, no doubt be brought before the Hon'ble High Court in appeal, I see no reason to take the unusual course proposed by the defence.'
2. I take up first Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1922 in which he has been convicted under Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code. The argument advanced before me is that, on the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, the entries in question were made to cover defalcations for which be was convicted under action Section 477A, was illegal inasmuch as the object was not to (sic) any one by making the false entries but it was in the main to save himself from the consequences of defalcations. Reliance is placed on the rulings of Empress of India v. Juwanand 5 A. 221 : A. W. N. (1882) 236 : 3 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 181, Empress v. Mazhar Husain 5 A. 653 : A. W. N. (1883) 133 : 3 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 502, Queen-Empress v. Nand Kishore 19 A. 305, A. W. N. (1897) 64 : 9 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 199 and Queen-Empress v. Girdhari Lal 8 A. 653, A. W. N. (1886) 204 : 5 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 396. There are some cases of other High Courts which take a different view but I am bound by the view taken by our own High Court as to the main ingredient which constitutes an offence under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, the section which defines what forgery is Section 477A deals only with a special class of forgeries. As found by the learned Sessions Judge, the object of making the false entries in the present case was to cover defalcation made by the accused. His conviction, therefore, for forgery is not sustainable. There is no other Section of the Code under which his conviction can be upheld.
3. I, therefore, acquit him of the offence charged and set aside his conviction and sentence in this case.