JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - These criminal revisions have been heard together as they involve common questions of law and fact and will be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Petitioners and four others were found on 6th July, 1971 carrying each a bundle containing non-duty paid ganja at Umed Railway Bridge about three miles distant from Jeypore town. The Sub-Inspector of Excise seized the ganja and prepared eight seizure lists which were attested by witnesses. Separate prosecution reports were submitted and each case was separately tried by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Jeypore who convicted the Petitioners u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced each one of them to R.I. for four months. He acquitted the accused in the other four cases. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction, but reduced the period of imprisonment to two months. 3. At the trial the Petitioners denied the seizure and pleaded innocence. 4. Prosecution examined four witnesses including the Excise S.I. and on a consideration of their evidence both the Courts below came to the concurrent finding that the Petitioners Shyamaghan Senapati, Gulak Tandia, Gangadhar Bagh and Banamali Harijan were in unlawful possession of 5 Kgs., 4? Kgs., 4? Kgs. and 9? Kgs. of non-duty paid Ganja respectively. 5. Mr. H.G. Panda, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners challenged the legality of the conviction contending that the articles seized from the Petitioners have not been proved to be non-duty paid ganja. He invited my attention to the seizure lists wherein the seized articles have been described as "Deshi Jungli Ganja" and relied, on a decision reported in The State v. Satyanarayan Mallick 31 (1965) C.L.T. 172, in support of his contention that Deshi Jungli Ganja is not the same as non-duty paid Ganja. That case is clearly distinguishable. In that case the description of the seized article was given in the seizure list as "Deshi Ganja" and the Excise Sub-Inspector who was examined at the trial did not also depose that the Ganja recovered was non-duty paid one. Thus, there was a total lack of evidence that non-duty paid Ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused. In that case the description of the seized article was given in the seizure list as "Deshi Ganja" and the Excise Sub-Inspector who was examined at the trial did not also depose that the Ganja recovered was non-duty paid one. Thus, there was a total lack of evidence that non-duty paid Ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused. But in the present case the Excise Sub-Inspector who has been examined as p.w. 4 in all the four cases has categorically stated that the article recovered from the possession of the Petitioners was non-duty paid ganja. His evidence in this respect went practically unchallenged. The Petitioners did not take this objection before the Courts below. They remained content with a mere denial of the seizure. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the belated plea. 6. The next contention raised by Mr. Panda is that the learned Magistrate committed on illegality in trying the Petitioners separately in contravention of the provisions of Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure (old) Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure sets out which persons may be charged or tried together. It consists of seven Clauses (a) to (g) Mr. Panda relied on Clause (a) which says: "persons accused of same offence in the course of the same transaction." His contention is that since the Petitioners and four others were found at the same time on the same day at the same place carrying non-duty paid ganja different only in quantity, all of them were accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction and should, have been tried together. It is also contended that the Petitioners have been prejudiced by the separate trial as on the evidence of the same witnesses four cases ended in acquittal and in the four other cases the Petitioners were convicted. 7. In order so determine whether several persons can be jointly tried as having committed the same offence or not the Court has to look to the accusation made by the prosecution and if it can be held that the accused persons have committed the same offence in the course of the same transaction then they can be tried together, but not otherwise. Unless it is shown that there was some identity or community of object amongst the accused persons, it cannot be said that the offence committed by them came within the purview of Section 239(a), Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection I may refer to a decision reported in Samiullah Sahib v. King Emperor A.I.R 1927 Mad. 177, which was a case where several accused persons were convicted under Sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal Code. They were all separately engaged in fishing and there was no evidence of common object or common intention; they were merely several poachers gathered at the same place at the same time. All the accused persons were tried together as having committed theft and trespass in the course of the same transaction and were convicted. It was held that the cases ought; not to have been jointly tried and that such joint trial was not a mere irregularity. Accordingly, the conviction was set aside. In course of, his discussion the learned Judge gave on illustration which is quite illuminating, he said: A, B and C travel in the same train without tickets: the purpose of each is to be conveyed without paying it is a similar purpose but not identical, because A does not intend that Band C shall escape paying and so with B or C. They cannot be jointly tried A, B and C travel in compartments reserved for other communities, as a protest against the railway policy. There is no evidence that they have conspired, but if their purpose is to protest their purpose is identical. They are putting through the same thing and it is the same transaction. They can be tried jointly. 8. In his usual fairness, Mr. Panda brought to my notice a decision of this Course in the case of State v. Punia Gour and Ors. AIR 1958 Cutt. 243 which is directly in point. In that case all the seven accused persons were found to be in possession of non-duty paid ganja at the same place and they were coming from the same place where the ganja was purchased. Hon'ble Rao, J. overruled the contention that the offences were committed in the same transaction. Relying on the principles laid down in Samittllah Sahib v. King Emperor A.I.R 1927 Mad. Hon'ble Rao, J. overruled the contention that the offences were committed in the same transaction. Relying on the principles laid down in Samittllah Sahib v. King Emperor A.I.R 1927 Mad. 177, referred to, above, his Lordship held as follows: In the case before me, each was in possession of non-duty paid ganja, but that does not show that their offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. This case is identical with the illustration given in the judgment of the learned Judge Mr. Justice Jackson where three persons were travelling without ticket in a train and though the offence committed by each of them was the same, they could not be tried together. His Lordships also relied on another decision reported in Re: Amolak Mulchand and Ors. v. Emperor 34 Cri. L.J. 1175, wherein it was indicated: Where there is no, evidence on the side of the prosecution to prove that there was any prior consultation or community of purpose amongst the accused, a joint trial is nut justifiable u/s 239, Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Mr. Panda also cited a decision reported in Yusuf Khan Vs. Emperor wherein Hon'ble Ray J (as he then was) observed: It has been decided time and again that whether the offences are committed in course of the same transaction is to be judged from common sense point of view and no decision can be picked out, as it is not humanly possible in which it has been authoritatively intended to be laid down as to what the elements are that will make out one transaction. Authorities are not wanting in which it has been held that uniformity of time or place are not sufficient to make one transaction of the acts committed then and there. What I understand the section to mean is this, that there must be accomplishment of certain object or performance of certain act in view. In order that the different acts will make up one transaction, it must be inherent in them that from the very beginning of the earliest act or the first act, the other acts should either be in contemplation, or should from the very nature of the transaction 10 View form the component parts of one whole. 10. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Anr. 10. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Anr. AIR 1962 S.C. 1850, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while construing the provision of Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure observed that separate trial is normal rule and joint trial is on exception. 11. The facts proved in the instant case do not show that the eight persons from whom non-duty paid ganja was seized acted in concert or association. There is nothing to show that the act committed by one accused has any connection with the act committed by the other. There is therefore no material on record to support the contention that the offences were committed in course of the same transaction. Having gone through the evidence on record and having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at length, I see no cogent ground for interfering with the order of conviction. 12. At the time of admission of these criminal revisions, notices were issued to the Petitioners to show cause why the sentence of imprisonment for two months should not be enhanced. Both parties have advanced arguments on the question of sentence. Having regard to the quantity, of non duty paid ganja seized from each of the Petitioners, the sentence of R.I. for a short period of two months appears to be inadequate. I would, therefore enhance the sentence of imprisonment to a period of four months in the case of each of the Petitioners. With this modification, the criminal revisions are dismissed. The Petitioners should surrender themselves to their bail bonds forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed