K.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) These two revision applications arise out of one and the same judgment passed by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants against their order of conviction and sentence under section 25 (a), Arms Act, passed by Sri B. D. Gupta, Magistrate First Glass Banda.
(2.) The facts giving rise to these revision applications are as follows : On 22-3-1965 Sub-Inspector R. N. Nagar of thana Naraini, district Banda, received information that the applicants were going towards Kachhiyan Purwa with unlicensed arms and ammunition's, This information was received by the aforesaid Sub-Inspector in village Metiari where he had gone in connection with certain investigation. S. I. Nagar collected a number of witnesses and reached the canal culvert which was close to Kachhiyan Purwa. The applicants were seen going. The informant pointed out towards them. The applicants were arrested. Their persons were searched in presence of witnesses. A country-made gun and nine live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Bachcba Singh (applicant) and one Muzzle Loading Gun with a quantity of gun-powder was recovered from the possession of Rohini. The unlicensed arms and ammunition's recovered from the possession of each of them were sealed at the spot in presence of witnesses. The police then registered a case against the applicants under section 25 (a) of the Arms Act. The police investigated the case and after completing the investigation challaned the applicants. The applicants were tried by Sri B. D. Gupta, Magistrate First Glass and each of them was convicted to 15 months' R. I. Their appeals were dismissed by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda. Being dissatisfied they have come in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Joint trial of both the applicants was illegal and was against the provisions of section 239-A Gr. P. G. This point was argued before the lower appellate court as well. The lower appellate court held that in the course of same transaction the persons of the applicants were searched and, therefore, the joint trial of the applicants was legal and valid as provided under sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (d) to section 239 Cr. P.C. Section 239 Gr. P.C. reads as below : "The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely : (a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction ; (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment, or of an attempt to commit such offence; (c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind within the meanings of section 234 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction: (e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, or criminal misappropriation and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence ; (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code or either of these sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence ; and (g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin, and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence ; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges.";