1. We have no hesitation in finding that the conviction of the accused in this case was vitiated by the joinder of the charges for more than three offences at one trial, The third charge related to two false entries EE--12 and EE--9, and these entries were concerned with separate transactions by which the accused took out two advance of Rs. 28,700 and Rs. 1,950, respectively, on two separate deposits of areca, of which 525 mauads of old areca and 520 maunds of new areca were not received. These constitute, in our opinion, two separate offences, for, as was pointed out in Queen Empress v. Mati Lal Lohiri 3 C.W.N. 412 : 13 Ind. Dec. 959, which was followed in another decision of the same Court in Raman Behary Das v. Emperor 22 Ind. Cas. 729 : each false entry which amounts to an act of falsification constitutes a separate offence, although a number of false entries might be proved to cover one defalcation.
2. In this instance under the third charge there were two acts of defalcation covered by two false entries and the only thing to connect them together was the fact that the goods were received on the same day from the same depositor. There were, besides this third charge, two other charges. The joinder of more than three charges at a single trial is fatal to the trial as laid down in Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor 25 M. 61 and the conviction is, therefore, quashed and the accused is acquitted. We do not consider that there should be re-trial of the accused on the present charges.