JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - The applicants Jagannath, Ram Adhar and Ratanwa were convicted by a first class Magistrate of Banda u/s 19(f) Arms Act and they were each sentenced to 8 month's rigorous imprisonment. On appeal their conviction was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge but the sentence was reduced from 8 months to 6 month's rigorous imprisonment. They have now come up in revision. 2. It appears that Sri Abdul Hamid, Station Officer, Bisenda received information that the applicants used to go for watering their fields with un-licenced arms in the night. On receipt of this information he, along with some constables and 4 witnesses, namely, Baqar, Shabbir, Hira Lal and Manmohan Singh, started for village Bagha on the night between the 28th and the 29th Oct. 1952. They stopped on the way in the field of one Jeet Singh which lay to the east of village Bagha in order to arrest the applicants when they happened to pass that way. At about 4 am. the applicants passed that way and were arrested. On a search of their persons rifle (Ex. I) and bullets (Exs. II to VIII) were recovered from the possession of Jagan Nath; pistol (Ex. IX) and cartridges (Ex. X to XII) were recovered from the possession of Ram Adhar; and pistol (Ex. XIII), five percussion caps (Ex. XIV), four shots (Ex. XV) and gun powder (Ex. XVI) were recovered from the possession of Ratanwa. These articles were taken in custody and their recovery lists were prepared. The accused were then sent up for trial. 3. The applicants denied that they were in possession of any unlicenced arms or (sic). Their case was that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. 4. The prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, Abdul Hamid Sub-Inspector, (sic), Manmohan Singh and Shabbir. The accused Jaganhath examined one witness, Sri Ram Sanehi Bharthi, M.L.A. in order to prove that there was enmity between him and Sri Abdul Hamid and that he had made complaints against the latter. 5. Both the lower courts believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated above. 6. The first contention on behalf of the applicants is that they could not be tried jointly as the offences alleged to have been committed by each of them were separate and independent of each other. 5. Both the lower courts believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the applicants as stated above. 6. The first contention on behalf of the applicants is that they could not be tried jointly as the offences alleged to have been committed by each of them were separate and independent of each other. In order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure with provides for joint trial of several persons Sub-clause (a) of this section provides that-- persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction nay be tried jointly at one trial. 7. There is no doubt that the three applicants in this case were accused of the same offence, i.e., Section 19(f) Arms Act. The question which arises for consideration is whether the three applicants had committed the offence in the course of the same transaction. I do not think that merely because several persons are found to have committed a particular offence at the same place and at the same time any presumption can be drawn that they had committed the offence in the course of the same transaction. In my opinion these words mean that there should have been some community of purpose between the different accused who had committed the same offence it the same place and at the same time. Where there is no evidence on the record to show that there was any community of purpose between the accused it is difficult to hold that they had committed the offence in the course of the same transaction. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the case of Abdul Aziz Vs. Rex, AIR 1950 All 364 . In this case two persons were found selling contraband opium at the same place and at the same time and they were both jointly tried u/s 9 of the Opium Act and were convicted. The question which arose in the revision was whether joint trial was legal and in order to decide this question it became necessary to consider the meaning of the term 'the same transaction'. The question which arose in the revision was whether joint trial was legal and in order to decide this question it became necessary to consider the meaning of the term 'the same transaction'. It was held by Bind Basni Prasad, J. that the expression 'the same transaction' suggested not necessarily proximity in time so much as continuity of action and purpose and the test in such cases was that the acts done might be so related to each other in point of purpose or as cause and effect or as principal and subsidiary acts as the constitute one continuous action; and if two persons belonging to different places go to a market place quite independently to sell contraband opium and both are caught simultaneously it does not necessarily follow that there was any continuity of action or purpose between the two. 8. In view of this decision and in absence of any evidence that the different applicants were connected with each other and that there was any community of purpose between them, it is difficult to hold that the offence committed by the different applicants was committed in the course of the same transaction. In the circumstances Section 239(a) is not applicable to the present case and the applicants could not be jointly tried at one time. Their conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 9. The question which next arises for consideration is whether the applicants should be retried separately on the charge u/s 19(f) Arms Act. I have been taken through the evidence on the record and I am of opinion that the evidence has not satisfactorily established the charge against them. In the first place, it does not appear probable that the applicants who were going to their fields for watering them would take arms with them. The prosecution witnesses who have been examined in order to prove the charge against the applicants do not appear to be independent and reliable. It has been found by the courts below that the applicant Jagan Nath made a complaint against Sri Abdul Hamid Sub-Inspector, and on account of this fact the police would have naturally had a grievance against him. It has been found by the courts below that the applicant Jagan Nath made a complaint against Sri Abdul Hamid Sub-Inspector, and on account of this fact the police would have naturally had a grievance against him. It also appears from the evidence on the record that the accused Jagannath was implicated by this very witness in a murder case and that another case u/s 342 I.P.C. was started against the wife and son of Jagannath by him. It also appears from the evidence on the record that Rasul, brother of Baqar (P.W. 2) appeared as a prosecution witness in the case u/s 342 I.P.C. against the wife and son of Jagannath applicant and that the cousin of Manmohan Singh (P.W. 3) had appeared as a prosecution witness against the applicants in a murder case and his nephew Sulkhan appeared as a prosecution witness against the wife and son of Jagannath applicant in the case u/s 342 I.P.C. In view of these facts there is no doubt that Baqar and Manmohan Singh cannot be said to be independent witnesses. It is not known what was the result of the cases in which the relations of Baqar and Man-mohan Singh appeared as prosecution witnesses against the wife and son of Jagannath applicant in the case u/s 342 I.P.C. and against the applicants in the murder case. Baqar and Shabbir are not residents of village Bagha where the applicants are said to have been arrested while going to water their fields, but of another village, Kurrahi. No satisfactory explanation was offered as to why witnesses of Bagha village were not taken by Abdul Hamid when he was going for the arrest of the applicants. Manmohan Singh, who is of that village, had already appeared as a prosecution witness against the applicants and also against the wife and son of Jagannath applicants in other cases. It appears that the Sub-Inspector took only these witnesses with him who were probably under his influence and who had appeared as prosecution witnesses against the applicants on previous occasions at his instance. In the circumstances it is very doubtful if the applicants were really in possession of the arms which are said to have been recovered from their possession. I do not, therefore, consider that this is a fit case in which the applicants should be retried. 10. In the circumstances it is very doubtful if the applicants were really in possession of the arms which are said to have been recovered from their possession. I do not, therefore, consider that this is a fit case in which the applicants should be retried. 10. These revisions arc, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentences of the applicants u/s 19(f) Arms Act are set aside. As they are on bail they need not surrender; their bail bonds are discharged.