JUDGMENT Pargiter, J. - I agree in the judgment of my learned brother that the charges framed in this case are contrary to the law. They relate to the properties alleged to have been stolen in eight different thefts. There appears to be no evidence to prove that they were received at one and the same time. It cannot be inferred that because all the properties were found in the possession of the accused at the same time in circumstances which suggest that they were retained dishonestly, they therefore constituted one dishonest retention. It may be that the property stolen in one theft came into their hands by one transaction and constituted one dishonest retention; but the eight thefts are alleged to have been committed at various times during a period of nearly six months and the presumption would rather be that they came into the hands of the accused persons by different transactions. The finding then of all the properties in the accused person's possession at one time would nor operate to combine all the transactions into one whole so as to make one combined charge legal. I agree therefore in the order passed by my learned brother. Woodroffe, J. The three accused in this case were charged before the Chief Presidency Magistrate with having (1) on or about the 27th September 1904 at 20, Wellesley Street, dishonestly received or retained 8 sets of cooking utensils belonging to and stolen from 8 different persons and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 411 of the Penal Code; (2) on or about the 24th September aided and abetted one another in the commission of the offence of retaining this property and thereby committed an offence under secs. 109, 114 and 411 of the Penal Code; (3) on or about the 21st September 1904 at 2, Elgin Road, committed theft, of certain articles being portion of the property mentioned in the first charge and thereby committed an offence punishable under sec 380 of the Code; (4) with having also on or about the 1st September 1904 at 95, Chackerberia Road, committed theft of certain other articles being a portion of those mentioned in the first charge; (5) with having aided and abetted one another in the commission of the offences of theft mentioned in the last two counts and thereby committed an offence punish-able under sees. 109, 104, and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first and second accused have been convicted under sec. 411 and it is therefore only necessary to consider the charge under this section. The third accused has been discharged. 3. It has been contended that the first and second counts of the charge are illegal and that in consequence the trial is bad and the judgment and sentence must be set aside. 4. Upon information received to the effect that the accused were dealers in stolen property, their shops were searched on the 24th September last, some six cart loads of utensils were found and removed to the Thanah. On the 28th September the accused were brought before the Magi rate. Separate trials were instituted in his Court and in the Saburban Courts with reference to the different articles of property above-mentioned, which are said to have been stolen on eight different dates extending from about the beginning of the month of April to the 21st September 1904. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate says that this was done despite his pointing out at an early stage that there was no evidence of the separate receiving of such property on different occasions and that therefore one charge would lie in respect of the whole mass of the alleged stolen property. The initial procedure was in my opinion the correct one and the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was in error in a supposing that the mere fact (if it were so) that there was no evidence of separate receiving entitled him to frame the charge as he has done. It lay upon the prosecution to establish the facts which would justify such a charge. It cannot be upheld simply because there may be no evidence one way or the other. The receipt of each article constituted a separate offence and the accused could only be tried for three of such offences committed within one year unless it were shown that the receipt of all the articles formed one transaction. It cannot be upheld simply because there may be no evidence one way or the other. The receipt of each article constituted a separate offence and the accused could only be tried for three of such offences committed within one year unless it were shown that the receipt of all the articles formed one transaction. Not only has this not been shown, (there being admittedly no evidence on the point) but on the contrary in the present case the charges themselves and the evidence appear to me to indicate that the receiving did not take place at one and the same time the thefts (in respect of two of which the accused are charged in the alternative with being guilty) having taken place on eight several dates between the beginning of April and the end of September 1904. I have already dealt with the contention that, as there was nothing to show separate receiving the charge and trial as made and held should stand. The other point on which we were addressed by the learned Advocate-General was with reference to the charge of retaining, viz, that, even if there were separate acts of receiving, there was but one offence of dishonest retaining; or, if several offences, they constituted one and the same transaction. It was argued by learned Counsel for the accused that there was no distinction as to the time when the offence was committed between dishonest receiving and dishonest retention. This contention is in my opinion unsound, In the case of dishonest receiving the offence is completed when the stolen property is received, the receiver knowing or having reason to believe at the time that the property was stolen property; whereas in the case of dishonest retaining the offence is committed not when the property is received but when after knowing or having reason to believe it is stolen, it is dishonestly retained. I think however that this distinction is not of importance upon the point with which we have to deal, for there was a separate offence in respect of each of the articles alleged to have been dishonestly retained and only three of such offences could be charged and tried in one trial, unless it was shown that the dishonest retention of all the articles was so connected as to form one transaction. This as I have pointed out in connection with the charge of dishonest receiving has not been done, and cannot in the absence of evidence be assumed. 5. The mere fact that all the articles were being dishonestly retained on the day that they were discovered with the accused does not constitute a simple offence or establish that several offences were committed in one and the same transaction. 6. I must therefore hold that the first and second charge and the single trial held with respect thereto was illegal. I set the judgment and conviction aside and direct that the accused be charged and retried with respect to such offences as he may properly be charged with and tried under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the joinder of charges. We have been asked to direct that the accused should be retried by some other Magistrate. We think that, under the circumstances of the case, this is desirable and we make the order accordingly.