JUDGMENT Misra, J. - This is a criminal reference u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure in a case u/s 500 I.P.C. pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, Bara Banki. The case arose on a complaint by Alia Bax, opposite party. It was alleged that the four accused, namely, Madan his wife, Mat. Kariman and his two daughters, Mst. Asghari and Mst. Kulsum publicly asserted that the complainant's brother, Ramzan, has illicit connection with the complainant's wife and that the accused persons made a statement to that effect on 25th December, 1948 before several persons and thereby defamed the complainant. 2. The accused live in Lucknow and are said to have gone to Bara Banki on the aforesaid date, made the allegation disclosed in the complaint and returned to Lucknow after making the alleged statement. 3. A number of witnesses were examined in support of the accusation and the learned Magistrate framed a charge on 4th July, 1949, to the following effect: That you on or about 25 day "of December, 1948, defamed Allah Bux by imputing that his wife Kulsum had illicit connection with Ramzan, his younger brother and that by the said Act you harmed the reputation of Allah Bux and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 500 I.P.C. and within my cognizance. 4. The joint trial has not yet taken place. 5. The matter came up before the learned Sessions Judge in revision and he has recommended that the charge be quashed and the accused persons be discharged. There are to grounds given by the learned lower Court for interference with the proceedings at this stage: (1) That there was an allegation of separate publication and if it be true, it indicates separate offences which could not be tried jointly, and (2) That the evidence on the recond was against the probabilities of the case. 6. As regards the first ground, it is to be observed that the trend of the complaint was to show that the accused were acting with one mind in spreading false information against the complaint's wife. There is nothing in Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure which precludes a joint trial in such a case. I am clear that where the complaint is that the accused had all been acting together with the object of publishing and disseminating false and defamatory imputations, a joint trial is not illegal. There is nothing in Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure which precludes a joint trial in such a case. I am clear that where the complaint is that the accused had all been acting together with the object of publishing and disseminating false and defamatory imputations, a joint trial is not illegal. The test in determining whether the acts complained of constitute 'the same transaction' within the meaning of Section 239 are proximity of time, unity of place, unity of purpose or design and continuity of action, the purpose and continuity being the principal points to be regarded. The complaint in the present case disclosed such unity and I am therefore not prepared to hold that a joint trial of the accused persons is in any manner inherently illegal. 7. The second point mentioned in the order of the learned Sessions Judge is hardly a matter which arose for consideration in revision but since I have had occasion to peruse the statements of various witnesses, I have come to the conclusion that the allegations made by the witnesses are not probable and sufficient ground for proceedings with the prosecution has not been made out. I consider that in a case like the one with which I am concerned, the alleged utterance of the defamatory words could not have been made jointly by Madan, his wife and his two daughters for obviously in order to achieve the purpose which the accused had in mind, a statement by one of them was sufficient. I find it somewhat difficult to conceive that all of them jointly disseminated the imputation by word of mouth at the same time and in unison. To try them jointly, in the circumstances, though not illegal is likely to occasion considerable prejudice. It would in my opinion, secure the ends of justice if the charge framed by the sub-divisional Magistrate is set aside and the accused persons are discharged. I order accordingly.