JUDGMENT - Bhairavia V.H., J.:—Heard the learned Counsel Shri Ingawale for the petitioners. 2. This revision application arises out of the order of conviction passed by the Learned Magistrate dated 30-11-1987, convicting the petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under sections 499, 500 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The said conviction order came to be confirmed by the Learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli by his order dated 17-7-1990. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel that the order of conviction is vitiated in view of the Judgment of this Court in (Balkrishna Anant Hirlekar v. Emperor)1, reported in A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 132, wherein it has been observed thus – “Where more than one accused person are on trial, failure to record statement of each accused person individually is an illegality which vitiates the trial”. This means that the statement of the accused required to be recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may be recorded separately and not in common. In the instant case, the Learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of both the accused commonly. I have gone through the said statement and it is found that the common questions are put to both the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the common answer was recorded. Apparently, it vitiates the prosecution and therefore, the conviction is also vitiated and deserves to be set aside. 4. In the result, the application is allowed. The order of conviction dated 30-11-1987 passed by the learned Magistrate and the order dated 17-7-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge are both set aside. Rule made absolute. Revision application allowed. -----