JUDGMENT K.N. Srivastava, J. - These two revision applications arise out of one and the same judgment passed by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants against their order of conviction and sentence under section 25 (a), Arms Act, passed by Sri B. D. Gupta, Magistrate First Glass Banda. 2. The facts giving rise to these revision applications are as follows : On 22-3-1965 Sub-Inspector R. N. Nagar of thana Naraini, district Banda, received information that the applicants were going towards Kachhiyan Purwa with unlicensed arms and ammunition's, This information was received by the aforesaid Sub-Inspector in village Metiari where he had gone in connection with certain investigation. S. I. Nagar collected a number of witnesses and reached the canal culvert which was close to Kachhiyan Purwa. The applicants were seen going. The informant pointed out towards them. The applicants were arrested. Their persons were searched in presence of witnesses. A country-made gun and nine live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Bachcba Singh (applicant) and one Muzzle Loading Gun with a quantity of gun-powder was recovered from the possession of Rohini. The unlicensed arms and ammunition's recovered from the possession of each of them were sealed at the spot in presence of witnesses. The police then registered a case against the applicants under section 25 (a) of the Arms Act. The police investigated the case and after completing the investigation challaned the applicants. The applicants were tried by Sri B. D. Gupta, Magistrate First Glass and each of them was convicted to 15 months' R. I. Their appeals were dismissed by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda. Being dissatisfied they have come in revision to this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Joint trial of both the applicants was illegal and was against the provisions of section 239-A Gr. P. G. This point was argued before the lower appellate court as well. The lower appellate court held that in the course of same transaction the persons of the applicants were searched and, therefore, the joint trial of the applicants was legal and valid as provided under sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (d) to section 239 Cr. P.C. Section 239 Gr. P. G. This point was argued before the lower appellate court as well. The lower appellate court held that in the course of same transaction the persons of the applicants were searched and, therefore, the joint trial of the applicants was legal and valid as provided under sub-clause (a) and sub-clause (d) to section 239 Cr. P.C. Section 239 Gr. P.C. reads as below : "The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely : (a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction ; (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment, or of an attempt to commit such offence; (c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind within the meanings of section 234 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction: (e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, or criminal misappropriation and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence ; (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code or either of these sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence ; and (g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin, and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence ; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges." 4. Under clause (a) to section 239 Cr. P. C. different persons accused of the same offence, if committed in the course of the same transaction, can be jointly tried. It cannot be doubted that both the applicants had been challenged for the same offence. It has, therefore, to be seen as to whether the offences were committed by both the applicants in the course of the same transaction. It cannot be doubted that both the applicants had been challenged for the same offence. It has, therefore, to be seen as to whether the offences were committed by both the applicants in the course of the same transaction. In order to find out as to whether the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction, a court has to see as to whether they are related to one another in point of purpose or, its cause and effect or as a principal or subsidiary act as to constitute one common continuous action. Where there is no identity or community of purpose and the accused separately commit the offence the same cannot be regarded to have been parts of the same transaction. It is not enough that the same offence is committed by different persons at the same time and at the same place. Over and above this, the prosecution must prove that there was a community of purpose or continuity of purpose, design, or continuity of action. 5. There is no evidence is these cases that the offences were committed by two applicants in continuity of purpose or action. The only evidence in these cases was that both the applicants were arrested at the same time and place and from both of them unlicensed arms and ammunition's were recovered. It is possible that one of the applicants did not know that the other was also in possession of an unlicensed arm. It might be just a chance that both the persons were found going together. A court has, therefore, to find that both the offences were related to each other as to constitute a continuous action. There is no such evidence in this case. This very question came up for decision in Jagannath v. State, 1956 ALJ 63. (1) in Jagannath's case reliance was placed on the case of Abdul Aziz v. Rex, AIR 1950 Allahabad 364. (2) and it was held that simply because two persons were arrested at the same time with unlicensed firearms, the offence committed by them was not committed in the course of the same transaction Jagannath's case is identical to the facts of the present case. 6. Clause (c) of section 239 does not apply to the facts of this case because the offences under section 26 (a) of the Arms Act were not committed by the applicants jointly. 6. Clause (c) of section 239 does not apply to the facts of this case because the offences under section 26 (a) of the Arms Act were not committed by the applicants jointly. The learned trial court was wrong in holding that clause (d) to section 239 Cr. P. C. applied to the facts of this case. Clause (d) would apply to cases where different offences are committed by different persons in the course of the same transaction. I have already held that the recovery of the unlicensed firearms from the possession of the applicants was not offence committed by the applicants in the course of the same transaction. 7. Joint trial in this case was, therefore against the provisions of section 239 Cr. P. C. Both the applicants should not have been tried jointly by the trial court. 8. On merit also, the case of the applicants is not free from doubt. Sometime before this recovery, a dacoity was committed in the house of Bhagwat. Rohini (applicant) was challaned in that case. Bhagwat identified him in the test identification. Bhagwat was one of the witnesses of recovery in this case as well. Bhagwat was not examined as a witness in this case. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the Sub-Inspector connected a false case against the applicants in conspiracy with Bhagwat. The courts below held that Barna and Chandrika were independent witnesses and there was nothing to show that they were, in any way under the influence of Bhagwat or the Sub-Inspector. There are material contradictions in the statements of Bhagwat, Baura and Chandrika. The trial courts has observed that these contradictions are of a minor nature, I am not prepared to believe that the applicants were carrying unlicensed guess so openly as alleged by the prosecution. The manner in which the firearms and ammunition's were recovered from the possession of the applicants does not inspire confidence. I was taken through the statements of Baura and Chandrika. Their statements do not inspire confidence. 9. As a result of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the sentence passed upon the applicants under section 25 (a) of the Arms Act cannot be maintained. The revision applications Not. 1197 of 1966 and 886 of 1966 are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed upon the applicants is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge. The revision applications Not. 1197 of 1966 and 886 of 1966 are allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed upon the applicants is set aside. They are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds which shall stand cancelled.