JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. 1. THIS revision has been filed by the prosecutrix against the dismissal of petition under section 319 CrPC filed by the State of U. P. during the course of the trial in S. T. No. 282 of 1979 against one accused Ujjwal Prakash under sections 366/376 UPC for impleading some persons who were said to have committed certain offences in the course of the same transaction. 2. THE relevant facts are that the prosecutrix was a 4th year midwifery student in Queen Mary's Hospital of the Medical College, Lucknow. She lived in the nursing hospital on 28-6-79 at about 7.30 P. M. She was said to have been abducted by accused Ujjwal Prakash while she was going out of hostel to join her duty and then taken to a lonely spot and raped by him and two other students who had joined him in the way. After investigation the police submitted a charge sheet against accused Ujjwal Prakash alone for offences under sections 366/376 IPC and the case was committed to Sessions. THE trial proceeded in the court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge in S. T. No. 282 of 1979. After the statements of the prosecutrix and the lady doctor who had examined her, this application was moved praying that Dr. K P. Bhargava, Principal Medical College, C. P. Joshi, P. R O. Smt. R. L. Majoomdar, Matron, Medical College, Lucknow and Srimati Sharma, Sister, Medical College, Lucknow be tried along with accused Ujjwal Prakash for various offences in the course of same transaction. Dr. Bhargava was said to have committed offence under section 201/203 IPC, P. R. O. Sri Joshi under section 201/202/342 IPC, Smt. Sharma under section 201/202/342 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after an elaborate judgment held that the allegations made by the prosecutrix in her statement did not make out any case for joining them in the case. He found that at the most the allegations could be against the matron Majoomdar and these allegations also were not such as formed part of the same transaction. They were entirely independent of the offence against accused Ujjwal Prakash. Hence he rejected the application. 3. AGAINST this order this revision was filed. The State, however, has not joined her. Here also the case has been pressed only against Smt. Majoomdar. They were entirely independent of the offence against accused Ujjwal Prakash. Hence he rejected the application. 3. AGAINST this order this revision was filed. The State, however, has not joined her. Here also the case has been pressed only against Smt. Majoomdar. A notice was also issued to her to show cause why revision be not allowed. She did not appear but filed a written statement denying the various allegations and giving entirely a different version. 4. AT this stage courts generally should not decide the matter on merits of the allegations. They have only to see whether the accusations made are such that it would appear that offences alleged have been committed. The allegations made by the prosecutrix Kumari Ranjana in her statement in the Sessions Court made out the following facts against Srimati Majoomdar :- 1. When she came out of the hostel at about 7.15 p. m. for purchase of curd, Smt. Majoomdar, met her at the hostel gate and asked her as to why she had not gone to attend the duty till then. She, therefore, directed her to go early. At that time, accused Ujjwal Prakash was also present at the gate with his scooter, but he had not taken part in the conversation between the metron and the prosecutrix at that time. 2. When the prosecutrix proceeded for duty, the accused Ujjwal Prakash told her that he had been asked by Matron Majoomdar to take her on his scooter for duty. When she refused, he told her that if she did not the matron would reprimand him and then he forcibly seated her on the back of his scooter. 3. After the offence of rape was committed and the accused and his companions ran away, the prosecutrix raised an alarm. She was brought to the office of Sri C. P. Joshi P. R. O. and there matron Majoomdar also came. They took her on an ambulance for medical examination in Queen Mary's hospital but it was not done as it was a Medico Legal case for which her examination was to be done in the Balrampur hospital. She was, however, not sent to the 'hospital and instead brought back in the hostel and kept in a room of sister Pushpa and the room was locked from outside at the instance of matron. 4. She was, however, not sent to the 'hospital and instead brought back in the hostel and kept in a room of sister Pushpa and the room was locked from outside at the instance of matron. 4. Smt. Majoomdar also got her clothes removed by saying that they would be handed over to the police but it has not been done so far. 5. Next day she came to her room and thereafter at about 11 A. M. she was taken by the Chowkidar on the first floor on the direction of Smt. Majoomdar, she was also there. There a report was dictated on her behalf by matron Majoomdar she was told not to include the name of accused Ujjwal Prakash. 6. Next day she was sent to Dufferin Hospital for examination and the report of her examination was forwarded to the police by the Principal, Medical College and then the case was investigated. 5. THE question is whether from these facts, it appears that the offences under sections 201/202/342 were committed by Matron Majoomdar in the course of the same transaction in which the principal offences of abduction and rape were committed. Now an qpinion which is formed on the basis of these facts itself is a finding of fact vide Ata Muhammad Khan v. THE Crown, AIR 1950 Lahore 199 para 26. In revision findings of fact are not open for interference even if the view taken was wrong. However, even otherwise on analysis, the view formed by the learned lower court cannot be said to be unreasonable. 6. THE relevant section on which a joint trial can be held is section 223 (d) CrPC corresponding to Section 239 of the Old CrPC. This provided that persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried tagether. THE trial court has referred to certain rulings to show as to what is meant by the expression, "same transaction ". THE learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to certain rulings in Dinkarray Raghnath v. State. 1963 CrLJ 162 and C. N. Krishna Murthy v. Abdul Subhan, 1965 (1) CrLJ 665. THE trial court has referred to certain rulings to show as to what is meant by the expression, "same transaction ". THE learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to certain rulings in Dinkarray Raghnath v. State. 1963 CrLJ 162 and C. N. Krishna Murthy v. Abdul Subhan, 1965 (1) CrLJ 665. ln Krishna Murthy's case (Supra) it was observed that in order that before a series of acts can be regarded as part of the same transaction, they must be connected together in same way as for instance by proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action. Of these proximity of time and unity of place are not essential, though they furnish good evidence of that which unites several acts. THE main test must really be continuity of action by which is meant the following up of some initial act through all its consequences and incidents until the series of acts or group of connected acts come to an end either by attainment of the object or by being put an end to or abandoned. " In the Dinkarry Raghnath's case (Supra) also,it was held that the real and substantial test for determination of the question whether certain acts form one transaction is the continuity of action and purpose. 7. IN the present case the offence of abduction and then rape came to an end at the lonely place where the prosecutrix was alleged to have been taken by accused Ujjwal Prakash and joined later by some other students. After their departure, she raised an alarm and them she was taken by P. R. O., Sri G. P. Joshi, to his room and thereafter others including Matron Smt. R. L. Majoomdar came there. So what happened when she was brought in the P. R. O. office could not be said to be in continuation of the offence of abduction and rape. There was no continuity as observed in Krishna Murthy's case (Supra). These persons were not following, the initial act which had come to an end when the culprits had left. She only incidentally came to the room of P. R. O. where the prosecutrix was taken after the accused had left. 8. There was no continuity as observed in Krishna Murthy's case (Supra). These persons were not following, the initial act which had come to an end when the culprits had left. She only incidentally came to the room of P. R. O. where the prosecutrix was taken after the accused had left. 8. IT is then said that the offence of destroying evidence of the primary offence can be said to form part of the same transaction with the primary offence, but this is also not a must in all cases. In the ruling referred to by the learned counsel in Mirza Zahid Beg v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Alld. 91, it was observed that although it is conceivable in some circumstances that the primary offence. and the offence of destroying evidence of the primary offence are two unconnected matters, it cannot be said that in no circumstances they would form part of the same transaction. That will depend upon the continuity of the action and other circumstances. In Lahore case in Ata Muhammad Khan v. The Crown (supra) the same principle was repeated and it was observed that it is conceivable that in some circumstances, the primary offence and the offence of destroying evidence of the primary offence are two unconnected matters. So merelly because Smt. Majoomdar is alleged to have removed the clothes of the prosecutrix with the alleged intention that the evidence of the offence may be destroyed, it could not be said that the act of hers was in continuation of the offence of abduction and rape. The circumstances shown above do not make it a case to be in continuation of the main offence. Similarly confining her in the room of sister Pushpa could not be said to be either in continuation or in following up with the main offence. It is said that before commission of the main offence, Smt. Majoomdar and Ujjwal Prakash were seen together at the hostel gate but there was no allegation that they bad come together, there is also no allegation that Smt. Majoomdar had asked the accused Ujjwal Prakash to take her to avoid delay. She had left the scene after directing the prosecutrix to go to her duty. It was only later the accused was said to have told the prosecutrix that he had been asked by the matron to take her. She had left the scene after directing the prosecutrix to go to her duty. It was only later the accused was said to have told the prosecutrix that he had been asked by the matron to take her. If that was actually so, she would have said so in her presence but it was not said. So the action of the accused abducting the prosecutrix could not be said to be connected with the presence of Matron Majoomdar. It may also be pointed out that in the FIR also matron Majoomdar was not said to be present ;at that time when the accused met her at the gate. Of course it is alleged that it was dictated by the matron but there is no supporting evidence at this stage for that. However apart from that, it cannot be said that the allegations made by the prosecutrix against the matron Smt. Majoomdar are such as to make out a case of joint trial 9. THE revision has no force and it is therefore dismissed. THE stay order is vacated. Revision dismissed.