Order.- It appears from the facts of the case that on 23rd October, 1977 at about 8-15 a.m. the petitioner was driving his lorry MDY 9138 from south to north between Dindigul and Madurai and that the second accused, who is not before me, was also driving the lorry TMY 7285 from north to south on the same road in the opposite direction. Both the lorries, which were coming in the opposite directions collided against each other with the result that the cleaner of the lorry driven by the petitioner herein sustained injuries and died at the hospital. The second accused and another person by name, Mani who were travelling in another lorry driven by the second accused sustained injuries. It is under these circumstances, both the petitioner and the second accused were charge-sheeted in a single case, C.C. No. 69 of 1978 before the Judicial First Glass Magistrate, Madurai under sections 279 , 337 , 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found them guilty and convicted them there under and sentenced each of them, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offences under section-279 and 337, Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under each of the offences under sections 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal by the accused the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence awarded by the trial court was reduced and was modified into one of fine of Rs. 600 (in all) on each of the accused. It is against this modification of the sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai Division the above criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner herein alone who was the first accused in C.C. No. 69 of 1978. 2. The only point argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, the accident has taken place on 23rd October, 1977, in which not only the petitioner but also the second accused were involved, and when two persons are involved in the accident by driving their respective lorries, can both the petitioner and the second accused be tried together in one and the same case for the offences under sections 279 , 337 , 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and, is not the conviction of the petitioner unsustainable and illegal by such common trial? 3. 3. This is really an interesting question, The accident has taken place when the two lorries-one driven by the petitioner and the other driven by the second accused were coming in the opposite directions and collided together. Though both the persons have committed offences individually, the respondent has launched the prosecution under the aforesaid section against both the accused without separating the case and the charges against each of them. Though this point was raised before the trial Court and the appellate court, the courts below did not consider it to be a material point for its decisions. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that a joint trial can be conducted such circumstances and both the petitioner and the second accused who is not before me can be charge-sheeted together and there is no infirmity in the said charge or in the trial. To support this contention reliance is placed upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in Balliah v. Emperor.1 That was a case where the two accused were drivers of two buses and the said buses were coming or a slope from the opposite direction. The buses collided against each other and as a result of that collision, six persons were killed and fourteen were injured. It was contended by the prosecution that the accident was caused by the criminal act of both of them. A point was taken on behalf of the accused that action against them cannot be taken in one and the same case and it cannot be said that the accident arose out of the same transaction and in order to constitute the same transaction, the parties engaged in it must have a similar or identical purpose in view. It was also contended that there was a misjoinder of parties, because the collision was the result of separate acts of the accused and did not arise out of the same transaction. A Bench of this Court held: &Though this is one very good test, it is not the only test. If two or more persons commit the same offence in the same transaction, they can be tried together. The collision is the one transaction and both the accused can be tried together.& 5. Reliance was also placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on another Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in State v. Mangtu Ram1. If two or more persons commit the same offence in the same transaction, they can be tried together. The collision is the one transaction and both the accused can be tried together.& 5. Reliance was also placed by the learned Public Prosecutor on another Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in State v. Mangtu Ram1. That was also a case where a bus and a car collided as a result of which the bus and the car got damaged and one person was hurt. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that both the bus and the car were driven on the wrong side of the road and did not dip their lights when they were facing one another. Both the accused in that case were tried under a common case for offences under sections 279, 337 and 426, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove any offence against the accused and hence they were acquitted. It is against this acquittal, the State preferred an appeal. It was contended on behalf of the State that the joint trial of both the accused, for offences under sections 279, 337 and 426, Indian penal Code, ought not to have been held by the trial Court as it was contrary to the provisions of section 239, Criminal Procedure Code, and it should be ordered by the High Court that the case should be retried. While dealing with the appeal, the Bench considered the expressions &same transaction& and ∈ the course of the same transaction& under sections 239(d) , 235(1) and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and held that the expression &the same transaction in section 239(d) carries the same meaning as given to it in section 235 (1) and the words ∈ the course of the same transaction& only mean during the period when the first act forming the series was committed and the commission of the last act ended. It was further held that in order to form one transaction: &the acts constituting that transaction must be in one series. But in order that the various acts may form one series it is not necessary that the acts may not be independent of one another. Even if several independent acts are responsible for producing a particular result these acts may constitute one series. But in order that the various acts may form one series it is not necessary that the acts may not be independent of one another. Even if several independent acts are responsible for producing a particular result these acts may constitute one series. Further, there must be some connection established between the various acts in order that they be part of the same transaction&. It was further observed by the Division Bench that ‘‘Where the series of acts that took place were: (1) rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver of the bus; (2) rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver of the car; (3) the acts of both the drivers in acting negligently leading to the collision and the combined effect of all these transactions resulted in the damage to the bus and the car and injuries to the driver of the car.& All the three acts were no doubt independent actions, but these acts produced the result which constituted the offences under sections 337, 426 and 279 of the Penal Code. No doubt, as pointed out by the Rajasthan High Court, the acts in that case constituted the offences under sections 337, 426 and 279 of the Penal Code. But the act was caused by the drivers who are guilty of rash and negligent driving for which the drivers were liable to be punished under section 279. But, that does not mean that at the time of the collision if they were driving rashly and negligently, their acts were not part of one series or that there was no connection with the offence committed by them. 6. The last decision cited by the learned Public prosecutor was Emperor v. Sherufalli Allibhay2 This was also case where a joint trial was conducted against the accused under several offences and such a trials was not considered illegal by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. 6. The last decision cited by the learned Public prosecutor was Emperor v. Sherufalli Allibhay2 This was also case where a joint trial was conducted against the accused under several offences and such a trials was not considered illegal by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The accused in that case was tried at one trial for three offences under sections 485 , 486 and 486, Indian Penal Code: (1) for possessing certain stencil plates for the purpose of counterfeiting Hubbok and Company's trademark on two kegs, of paint; (2) for having sold 12 kegs, of paint to which a counterfeit trade-mark was affixed; and (3) for having in his possession for sale certain kegs, of paint purporting to be Hubbock's paint having a counterfeit trade-mark. It was argued on behalf of the accused that he had been illegally tried at one trial for three separate offences, those charged in the first two charges being punishable under different sections of the Indian Penal Code, and having (as alleged) taken place at different dates, that the acts which were alleged to constitute the two offences did not form part of the same transaction and hence the joint trial in respect of these offences, is vitiated by illegalities and material irregularities and such a trial has to be set aside. The question that was considered by the High Court was, whether the several offences are so connected as to form the same transaction or whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose, or as cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary acts, as to constitute one continuous action. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the joint trial of the accused under the aforesaid sections was not illegal. It held that there was a community and also a continuity of purpose in the possession and the sale - the possession of the instruments was the cause, the possession of the kegs and their sale the effect, and both the possession and the sale had one intention and aimed at one result, namely, that of deceiving buyers into purchasing what was not the genuine article of Hubbock and Company. 7. 7. It is on the basis of the above decisions the learned Public prosecutor contends that joint trial of the petitioner along with the second accused, in the instant case, was not vitiated by irregularities nor was it contrary to law. 8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a decision reported in Edward Top v. State1 That was a case where the two recused were charged for offences under sections 304-A, 279, 336 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, for rash and negligent driving leading to a collision between the two cars driven by them from opposite directions resulting in the death of one pedestrian and causing hurt to another. They were tried together and were convicted by the trial Court. It was argued before the High Court that such a joint trial of the accused with respect to the said offences committed by each of them was vitiated with irregularity and was contrary to law. The High Court held that: &Whatever might be said of the collision and its consequences, proximate or remote, it cannot be held that the driving of his car by accused 1 on the one hand, in a rash or negligent manner so as to attract the penal provisions in sections 279 and 336 and similar conduct with his car by accused 2 on the other, constituted a &same transaction& within the meaning of sections 239(a) or 239(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). These are distinct acts unconnected with each other committed by different persons at different places and there is no warrant for the delinquents being jointly tried for those acts. In other words, there was misjoinder of charges and persons in holding a joint trial of accused 1 and 2 for commission of the offences under sections 279 and 336. & 9. In Srinivasan, In re2, Ramaswami, J., had occasion to consider a case of accident arising out of rash and negligent driving involving two vehicles, in which the drivers of both vehicles were prosecuted and a joint trial held. While considering the legality of the joint trial, it was observed by Ramaswami, J., that &In cases of collision between two motor vehicles, each is the victim of the other and it is difficult to say whether both or either was reckless or negligent. While considering the legality of the joint trial, it was observed by Ramaswami, J., that &In cases of collision between two motor vehicles, each is the victim of the other and it is difficult to say whether both or either was reckless or negligent. Hence the drivers of the two vehicles cannot be tried jointly for rash and negligent driving. It is not within the province of the Courts to presume that since the accident has occurred one or the other of the two should be guilty of rash and negligent driving and look to the possible persons who could have probably brought about the result.& 10. In In re Venkayaiapati3, with reference to the words &same transaction& appearing in section 239(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and where an offence was committed by two drivers of lorries who were charged under section 279, Indian Penal Code, it was held: &Rash and negligent act as contemplated by section 279, Penal Code, by one driver of a lorry is independent of the rash and negligent driving of the other driver. It cannot, therefore, be said that these two acts constitute the same transaction within the meaning of section 239 (a), Criminal Procedure Code. The trial of the two accused together in one case is, therefore, illegal.” 11. The question that has to be considered on the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra, is whether the prosecution can launch a joint trial, on the facts of instant case, against the petitioner and the other accused when both of them were responsible for causing the accident. 12. The facts of the case on hand are that two lorries were coming in opposite directions and the accident was caused, in and by which the cleaner of the lorry of the petitioner was killed and others suffered injuries. The contention of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, that he has got an independent right to defend himself if the case against him was seperately tried and, since he was tried jointly along, with the second accused, who is not before me, the petitioner's case has been prejudiced, and the entire proceedings have been vitiated with meterial regularity and the joint trial is contrary to law. When persons may be charged jointly is dealt with in section 223, Criminal Procedure Code. When persons may be charged jointly is dealt with in section 223, Criminal Procedure Code. Under section 223(a), Criminal Procedure Code, ”persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction“ can be charged jointly. For the purpose of conducting a joint trial against the persons, they must be ”accused of the same offence“ and such accusation should have taken place ”in the course of the same transaction. “The legislature has clearly chosen to use the word in plural as ‘persons’ and not as ‘person’. On a reading of section 223(a), Criminal procedure Code, it is clear that ”persons“ who have been accused of the same offence which was ”committed in the course of the same transaction “can be tried together. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said, on the basis of the wording of section 223(a), Criminal Procedure Code, that a joint trial cannot take place. 13. In the instant case, from the facts, it is clear that the petitioner and another, who is not before me, were charged not only under section 34-A , but also under sections 279 , 337 and 338, Indian Penal Code. The test to be applied on the question and on the facts of the case is, what is the same transaction where in the series of the same transaction took place and the combined effect of these transactions resulted in the death of one person and in the damage of both the vehicles. A Bench of our High Court in Balliah v. Emperor1 on similar facts came to the conclusion that ”if two or more persons commit the same offence in the same transaction, they can be tried together. ‘‘This Bench decision was approved and followed in State v. Mangtu Ram2 The facts in the instant case are such that on account of the accident, the cleaner of the lorry of the petitioner died and others suffered injuries. The accident that took place between the two vehicles cannot be said to be independent acts. All the acts combined together constituted an offence not only under section 304-A but also under the other section of the Indian Penal Code. The accident that took place between the two vehicles cannot be said to be independent acts. All the acts combined together constituted an offence not only under section 304-A but also under the other section of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the joint trial of the accused in C.C. No. 69 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai, cannot be said to be irregular or is contrary to Jaw. Each case has to be dicided on the basis of the offences levelled against the persons and it has to be seen whether the offences committed by such persons are connected together so as to form the same transaction and it also depends upon whether the offence is related to one another in point of purpose, or as cause and effect, or as principal and Subsidiary acts, so as to constitute one continuous action. I do not find any error of law in trying the petitioner and the other accused jointly by the trial Court and hence this criminal revision case is dismissed. R.S. ----- Criminal revision petition dismissed.