Order.- This is an application under sections 482 and 407, Criminal Procedure Code. The facts leading to this application are as follows: The petitioner filed a complaint against five accused alleging that they committed offences punishable under sections 147, 448, 436, 352 and 323, Indian Penal Code. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the Magistrate took cognisance of offences punishable under sections 147, 448, 436, 352 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and registered a case under P.R.C. No. 8 of 1976 for the said offences. As the offence under section 436, Indian Penal Code, is one exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, he postponed the issue of process against the accused and held an enquiry under section 202(2), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. After examining all the nine witnesses produced by the complainant, he opined that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding and accordingly issued summonses to the five accused in the case for their appearance before him on a certain day. On the appearance of the accused on the appointed day, he furnished them with copies of all the necessary documents and then passed an order committing the accused 1, 4 and 5 to the Court of Session on the ground that A-1 appears to have committed an offence punishable under section 436, Indian Penal Code, and A-4 and A-5 appear to have abetted the offence under section 436, Indian Penal Code, and further directed separation of the case against A-2 and A-3 for being tried before him in so far as the evidence disclosed that A-2 and A-3 merely beat the complainant with stones. The separated case against A-2 and A-3 merely beat the complainant of 1977 on the file of his Court. The complainant thereupon came up to this Court with this petition for quashing the order separating the case against A-2 and A-3 and for a direction that A-2 and A-3 also may be committed to the Court of Session to take their trial along with A-1, A-4 and A-5. The question for consideration is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate should have committed all the five accused t6 the Court of Session for a joint trial and is his action liable to be struck down? 3. The question for consideration is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate should have committed all the five accused t6 the Court of Session for a joint trial and is his action liable to be struck down? 3. Smt. D. Prasanna Kumari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that, once the Magistrate is of the opinion that the case involves an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall have to commit the case to the Court of Session as provided in section 209(a), Criminal Procedure Code, and it is not open to him to bisect the case so as to commit only some of the accused for trial by the Court of Session and to keep the case against the remaining accused for trial before him. It is argued that section 209 (a), Criminal Procedure Code, is a clear mandate to the Magistrate for committing the entire case and not a portion of the case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that he is not in a position to justify the action of the Magistrate. He also says that in the circumstances, the Magistrate ought to have committed all the five accused to the Court of Session instead of separating the case against two of the accused for trial before him. The accused, who are respondents in this proceeding, received notices but have not chosen to appear either in person or by Counsel. 4. Section 218(1), Criminal Procedure Code (which corresponds to the old section 233) provides that, for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately except in the cases covered by sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 (which correspond to the old sections 234, 235, 236 and 239). Section 220(1), Criminal Procedure Code, (corresponding to the old section 235(1)) provides that, if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person,, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. Section 223(d) (corresponding to section 239(d) of the old Act) provides that persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together at one and the same trial. Section 223(d) (corresponding to section 239(d) of the old Act) provides that persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together at one and the same trial. The expression “same transaction” has not been defined in the Act. It may not be possible to lay down any comprehensive formula or enunciate a hard and fast rule of universal applicability as to what series of acts would constitute “same transaction”. Each case has to be decided with reference to its own facts and circumstances. In order that a series of acts, be regarded as the “same transaction” they must be so connected or related together as to form a continuous course of action for the same purpose. The various tests employed generally are: proximity of time, unity of place, community of purpose or design and continuity of action. Proximity of time may not be essential in all cases, though in many cases it often furnishes good evidence of what unites several acts into one transaction. The main requirements are continuity of action and commonness of purpose. 5. Though the five accused in the instant case are alleged to have committed different offences, the allegations in the complaint clearly disclose that all the five accused together committed the various offences at 6 p.m. on 10th August, 1976. A scrutiny of the allegations in the complaint petition and the findings of the learned Magistrate in the committal order clearly show that, according to the complainant, all the five accused committed the various offences in the course of the same transaction. The different acts attributed to the five accused do constitute a series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. The five accused can, therefore, be tried in the same trial, though the offences committed by them are different and distinct. 6. No doubt, separate trial is the general rule and joint trial is merely an exception. The exception however is to be adopted in the exercise of judicial discretion. There may be cases where, even though a joint trial is permissible, separate trials may b6 conducive to meet the ends of justice. There may be certain other cases where separate trials and joint trials may both be permissible and a joint trial alone may be conducive to meet the ends of justice. There may be cases where, even though a joint trial is permissible, separate trials may b6 conducive to meet the ends of justice. There may be certain other cases where separate trials and joint trials may both be permissible and a joint trial alone may be conducive to meet the ends of justice. One of the cardinal principles of administration of justice by the Courts is the avoidance of multiple proceedings. Avoidance of the necessity of the same witnesses giving the same evidence in two or more different trials is necessary not only to avoid trouble and inconvenience to the witnesses, but also to obviate possible conflict of decisions if different trials are to be held by different but competent Courts. In the instant case, the transaction is the same. The Sessions Court is competent to try the accused 1, 4 and 5. The Magistrate is competent to try the accused 2 and 3. If two different trials are to be held, one against A-1, A-4 and A-5 and another against A-2 and A-3, the same witnesses will have to be examined in both the trials to prove the same transaction. While the same witnesses are to be examined twice in regard to the same transaction, there is the possibility of conflicting decisions between the two competent authorities in regard to the same transaction. It is such possibility of conflicting decisions that should be avoided by the Courts. It is therefore necessary that all the five accused are tried jointly in one and the same trial by one Court of competent jurisdiction. While the Sessions Court is competent to try the offences alleged against A-1, A-4 and A-5 and also the offences alleged against A-2 and A-3, the Magistrate is competent to try only A-2 and A-3 and not A-1, A-4 and A-5. The order of the Magistrate separating the case against A-2 and A-3 for trial before him is not proper and it is therefore quashed. He is directed to commit the accused 2 and 3 also to the Court of Session, so that they may also be tried along with the accused 1, 4 and 5 in the same trial. 7. The order of the Magistrate separating the case against A-2 and A-3 for trial before him is not proper and it is therefore quashed. He is directed to commit the accused 2 and 3 also to the Court of Session, so that they may also be tried along with the accused 1, 4 and 5 in the same trial. 7. On receipt of this order, the Magistrate shall convert C.C. No. 72 of 1977 on the file of his Court into P.R.C. No. 8-A of 1976 and commit the accused 2 and 3 to the Court of Session, Srikakulam. The Sessions Judge, Srikakulam shall try the accused 2 and 3 himself along with the accused 1, 4 and 5, if the case against the accused 1, 4 and 5 is before him or make over the case against the accused 2 and 3 to such other Sessions Court as to which he might have already made over the case against A-1, A-4 and A-5. 8. In the result, this miscellaneous petition is allowed.