JUDGMENT 1. These two connected rules have been tried together. In Rule 1226, we are concerned with three accused persons Mon Mohan Roy, Deno Nath Pal and Narayan Chandra Dutt. 2. Mon Mohan was a loader in the service of the East Indian Railway at Kristopur. Deno Nath is a merchant carrying on business in molasses at Kushtia. Narayan is Deno Nath's gomasta. 3. One of Mon Mohan's duties as a loader was to enter upon what are called consignment notes the true weight of goods despatched, and the case against the accused was that some time between July 1911 and March 1913, they had entered into a conspiracy to defraud the Railway in respect of the freight payable on such goods. ft was further alleged against them that on the 6th March 1913, the accused Mon Mohan accepted from Deno Nath through Narayan a sum of Rs. 8 as an illegal gratification, and in consideration of that sum and in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, understated on a consignment note the weight of a certain consignment by some 163 maunds and so joined with his two co-accused in defrauding the Railway of the sum of Rs. 34 being the freight payable on the difference between the true weight and the weight stated. 4. The charges framed against Mon Mohan were charges of offences under secs. 120B, 420 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges against the two co-accused were of offences under secs. 120B, 420 and 161 read in each case with sec. 109. Conviction followed on all the charges. 5. In Rule 1227 we are concerned with the same Mon Mohan and the same Deno Nath and with a third person named Janoki who is the son of Deno Nath. In this case the charges framed were in respect of the same or a similar conspiracy and of three similar acts of fraud committed in pursuance of the conspiracy on or about the 1st November, the 7th November 1912 and the 16th day of January 1913. The sum involved on each of these three occasions was a sum of Rs. 17-4. As in the first case, there were also charges in respect of two alleged gratifications said to have been paid to Mon Mohan -- one sum on or about the first and a second sum on or about the 6th November 1912. The sum involved on each of these three occasions was a sum of Rs. 17-4. As in the first case, there were also charges in respect of two alleged gratifications said to have been paid to Mon Mohan -- one sum on or about the first and a second sum on or about the 6th November 1912. In this case also on all the charges conviction followed. 6. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Howrah held in each case that the several offences charged under secs. 120B, 420 and 161 and under secs. 420 and 161 real with sec. 109 could not be said to have been committed in the course of one and the same transaction and that the trials were therefore vitiated by misjoinder. He therefore set aside the conviction and sentences in each cause leaving it open to the Crown to take such further proceedings as it might be advised. 7. Against these orders of the learned Sessions Judge, the Crown has moved this Court, and having had the advantage of hearing learned counsel or pleaders on both sides we are satisfied that in each case the learned Sessions Judge has fallen into error. In deciding whether offences are so connected as to form one and the same transaction the determining factor is not so much proximity in time as continuity and community of purpose and object. In the present case that test, we are of opinion, is clearly satisfied. It has been suggested that this view may lead to the joinder of an embarrassing multiplicity of charges, but we may observe that sec. 239 is merely an enabling section and does not in any way trammel the discretion of the Court. 8. As to a further question whether sec. 239 is controlled by sec. 234 of the Code, we need not in this case, and do not, express any opinion. For these reasons we set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge now under consideration and in each case direct that the appeals be re-heard and determined on the merits.