JUDGMENT 1. In This case the four-accused have been charged and tried together for two offences of dacoity alleged to have been committed on the 30th May and 2nd June 1909. Prom the statement of the fads in the Sessions Judges charge to the Jury, it is clear that these two alleged offences were entirely independent and were not committed in the same transaction. It is, therefore, objected that the accused should not have been tried together for the two offences in one trial. The objection seems to us to be sound. It is supported by the decision in Budhai Sheikh v. Emperor 33.CA. 292 : 10 C.W.N. 32 : 3 CrI.L.J. 126, with which we agree. 2. We, therefore, set aside the convictions and sentences and direct separate re-trials in respect of each alleged dacoity save that the 4th accused will not be re-tried for the dacoity of the 30th May of which he was acquitted by the Jury. The 4th accused will remain en the same bail.