JUDGMENT Stuart, J. Case and Section of a is to in the his that does not law against but Code for at did under The learned by joint was He had been on v. Sections All view Allahabad Bank Ram bicycle shop, seen loitering Post Office just disappeared. three men before First Code, being charged alternative Magistrate convicted 411 379 Indian Penal appeal. acquitted merits. appealed appeal dismissed. comes here revision. first point Counsel trial Narbada, bad provisions 234 239, Criminal Procedure Code. How stand three? prosecution Anwar Saran bicycles Narbada Prasad also dishonest possession both bicycles, each knowing these parts were stolen property. According taken Emperor Balabhai Hargovind 6 B. L.R. 517 : 1 Cri. L.J. 584 the theft of the two bicycles and dishonest possession of them knowing them to be stolen, that possession being by different persons, formed one transaction, even though the receipt was not simultaneous with the theft. I agree with the view taken in that decision. I do not find that there is anything in my view contrey to the view expressed by Lindsay, J., in the case of Jiwan v. Emperor 67 Ind. Cas. 505 : 19 A.L.J. 815 for there the actual thief not being charged in the case, there was nothing to connect the three persons. Here it is the fact that Anwar, the actual thief, was charged with the receivers, which justifies the several acts being considered parts of one transaction. On the merits Anwar was clearly proved to have been loitering just before the theft of the bicycles. When the owners returned the bicycles had disappeared, and Anwar had disappeared. Portions of the stolen bicycles were found in the shop in which he is employed. This being the case I do not see my way to interfere on the merits. I, therefore, dismiss this application.