Ali Ahmad, J. Two cases under section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, were registered against the petitioners. An application was filed before the learned Magistrate that the two cases may be amalgamated into one, as the allegation in the said two cases is the same and they be tried in one case, but the learned Magistrate rejected the application. The petitioners have preferred this application against that order. 2. To appreciate the points involved in the case it will be necessary to keep the following facts in mind. On 27th June, 1973, one Md. Hanif, Sanitary Inspector visited the shop of the petitioners and purchased seo and gathiya. The said sanitary Inspector on payment of price took sample of both the articles and thereafter observing the necessary formalities sent the two articles to the public Analyst for testing. The Public Analyst submitted two reports one with regard to the seo and another with regard to the gathiya. The two reports indicated that the ground-nut oil in which these two articles were prepared was adulterated. On the basis of the two reports the Sanitary Inspector submitted two prosecution reports after taking sanction of the Chairman, Ranchi Municipality before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ranchi. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the basis of the two prosecution reports registered two cases and took cognizance in both under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and thereafter transferred the case for trial. The two cases are now pending disposal in the same court. 3. At the time of framing of charge an application was filed for amalgamating the two cases and to frame one charge with respect to the two Articles which is said to have been prepared in adulterated ground-nut oil. As noticed earlier, the prayer was refused. Hence this application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the crux of the allegation was that on 27.6.1973 the petitioners were selling the articles prepared in adulterated groundnut oil and as such there could be only one trial. As noticed earlier, the prayer was refused. Hence this application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the crux of the allegation was that on 27.6.1973 the petitioners were selling the articles prepared in adulterated groundnut oil and as such there could be only one trial. He further submitted that the submission of two reports by the Public Analyst, two sanctions accorded by the Chairman of the Ranchi Municipality and two prosecution reports which ultimately resulted in two complaint cases were immaterial, Learned counsel further submitted that section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 allowed the trial of a person accused of three or less number of offences of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months. He further urged that the section also provided that offences of the same kind or those which are punishable with same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law should be subject matter of the same trial. It is obvious that the allegation made against the petitioners in the two cases is that they were found selling adulterated food articles on the same day which is punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Learned counsel, therefore submitted that the two charges should have been enquired into in one trial and that the petitioners should not be subjected to face two trials as this will cause undue harassment to them. The contention seems to be well-founded. The Supreme Court in Banwari V. State of Uttar Pradesh had occasion to consider this point. In that case a person was charged with three murders committed in short intervals on the same day. Three cases were registered against him followed by three orders under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Three sessions case were, therefore, registered, but all the three cases were, amalgamated and evidence was taken in only one case which was used in other two cases also. The trial court convicted the accused and the High Court upheld the conviction. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court where a plea was raised that the amalgamation of the three cases was erroneous and that the accused should have been tried separately in all the three cases. The trial court convicted the accused and the High Court upheld the conviction. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court where a plea was raised that the amalgamation of the three cases was erroneous and that the accused should have been tried separately in all the three cases. This argument was repelled by Raghuba Dayal, J, who on a consideration of the different provisions of the Code observed as follows : "We, therefore, hold that though a Sessions Judge cannot try at one trial persons committed under different committal orders with respect to distinct offences whose joint trial is not warranted by the provisions of Ss. 234 to 239 of the Code, he is competent to try at one trial persons who can be tried at one trial under the provisions of those sections even if there had been separate committal orders." 5. In my opinion, the aforesaid case decided by the Supreme Court fully covers the facts of the present case. As I have stated above, the date of occurrence in the two cases is the same - the mode of adulteration is the same-the place of occurrence is the same. The mere fact therefore that there were two prosecution reports on the basis of which the two separate cases were registered will not justify two separate trials in violation of section 234 to 239 of the Code. 6. In the result, the order dated 23.6.1976 is set aside and it is directed that the petitioners be tried for the charges against them in the two cases in one trial. The application is accordingly allowed. Application allowed.