Order.- On a complaint made by the Government of Hyderabad, through the Inspector of Factories, Zone No. 2, Gulbarga, that the accused as manager of Sri Krishna Rice and Oil Mills, Wanaparthy Road, Mahbubnagar district, has committed the irregularities mentioned in the complaint and therefore guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Hyderabad Factories Rules and the Indian Factories Act (Act No. LXIII of 1948) punishable under section 92 of the Act, the Munsif-Magistrate, Wanaparthy, found the accused guilty and imposed a total fine of Rs. 150 at the rate of Rs. 25 under each charge. In the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, the accused did not seriously contend that the irregularities were not committed but urged the legal point that there should have been a separate trial for each of the offences with which he was charged, and, therefore, the trial is vitiated. But the learned Sessions Judge merely cor tented himself by holding that the misjoinder of charges, if any, is a curable defect under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in this view dismissed the appeal. This Revision Application is against the order dismissing that appeal. Mr. Madhava Reddy for the accused contends that under section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused could not be charged with more than three offences committed within a period of twelve months even if they be of the same kind, and for section 235, Criminal Procedure Code, to apply, these offences must form one series of facts so connected as to constitute the same transaction, but that in this case these mandatory provisions have been wholly violated. In exemplification of this contention, he states that the first irregularity mentioned in the complaint is in respect of rule 88 of the Hyderabad Factories Rules framed under the Indian Factories Act for not displaying a notice for periods of work for adult workers in Form No. 14, that the next is in respect of the failure to provide spittoons as required under section 20 of the Indian Factories Act while the 3rd and 4th relate to the carelessness in fencing the machinery so as to give protection and in not providing the first-aid box as required by sections 21 and 45 of the Act respectively and the fifth irregularity for which the accused is made liable is the failure to display an abstract of Rules and the Act, which is made incumbent upon the manager of a factory under rule 114. It is also stated that these irregularities were pointed out to the accused on 27th February, 1956, by the Inspector of Factories during his inspection and the accused was directed to remedy these defects within a week. But he urges that though he did not comply with the demand so made by the Inspector of Factories, the alleged contravention of rule 117 should have been treated as yet another separate offence. According to the learned counsel, each of this is a distinct offence for which there should be a separate charge and the misjoinder of these in one and the same trial has rendered the trial null and void. He further contends that the provisions of clause (b) of section 537, Criminal Procedure Code, inserted by the amending Act XXVI of 1955 does not operate to validate trials which are ab initio void having been hit at under section 235, Criminal Procedure Code. The point whether this is a case to which section 234, Criminal Procedure Code, applies may be taken up first. The point whether this is a case to which section 234, Criminal Procedure Code, applies may be taken up first. These offences mentioned as irregularities in the complaint are made punishable as contraventions only under section 92 of the Indian Factories Act which states: “Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may-extend to 3 months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees 01 with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy-five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued.” From this it is clear that the provisions relating to each of the irregularities in the Act or Rules do not specify separately a different punishment for contravention of each of those irregularities, but has dealt them all on a common plant as provided under section 92 of the Factories Act only. Therefore in such cases it cannot but be predicated that all these offences would be of the same kind and the accused cannot but be charged with more offences than three, if not saved by section 235, which is in the nature of an exception to section 234, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the main consideration which is of importance in a case like this is to find out whether these acts are connected as to form the same transaction. Sub-section (1) of section 235 which is relevant states: “If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences then one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence”. There is no dispute in this case that the same Manager of the particular mill is the accused. The only other ingredient necessary for a trial to fall under this section is whether the acts complained of or the offences are so connected together as to form the same transaction. There is no dispute in this case that the same Manager of the particular mill is the accused. The only other ingredient necessary for a trial to fall under this section is whether the acts complained of or the offences are so connected together as to form the same transaction. The want of a definition of “same transaction” in the Criminal Procedure Code has been responsible for many a decision providing for tests for determination of what these words connote. The earliest of these decisions could be found in Choragudi Venkatadri and others v. The Emperor1, where in a Division Bench consisting of Benson and Abdur Rahim, JJ., laid down the oft-repeated dictum that “community of purpose or design and continuity of action are essential elements”. They were there concerned with acts of misappropriation of the accused which extended over a period of more than 12 months. The accused were six in number and it was alleged that in pursuance of a systematic scheme for defrauding the members of the public who were invited to subscribe to a fund, the offences were committed. Abdur Rahim, J., says at page 507: “In such cases the acts alleged to be connected with each other must have been done in pursuance of a particular end in view and as accessory thereto or perhaps as suggested by the circumstances in which the acts in pursuance of the original design were done and in close proximity of time to those acts. But mere community of purpose is not sufficient; there must also be continuity of action.” In re Balam Pateyya and others2, Pandrang Row, J., dealing with joint trials says at page 342: “A joint trial in respect of very large number of counts is very much to be deprecated even though the law may not prohibit it. It is one thing to say that a joint trial was legal but quite another to say that it was proper in the circumstances. No doubt, joint trials would be legal in certain circumstances, but the general rule is that there should be a separate trial in respect of every separate charge. It is the exceptional cases which contemplate joint trials in respect of a number of charges, and there is no rule of law which compels a Judge to hold a joint trial. No doubt, joint trials would be legal in certain circumstances, but the general rule is that there should be a separate trial in respect of every separate charge. It is the exceptional cases which contemplate joint trials in respect of a number of charges, and there is no rule of law which compels a Judge to hold a joint trial. Even where a joint trial is permitted by law, it is open to him, and in a case like this it would have been expedient also to have held separate trials”. This learned Judge’s objection to a joint trial is mainly on the ground that the multitude of accusations bewilder the accused and prejudice him. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Aftab Ahmed Khan v. The State of Hyderabad3had an occasion to consider this question. Ghulam Hasan, J., says: “Section 233 embodies the general law as to the joinder of charges and lays down a rule that for every distinct offence there should be a separate charge and every such charge should be tried separately. There is no doubt that the object of section 233 is to save the accused from being embarrassed in his defence, if distinct offences are lumped together in one charge or in separate charges and are tried together but the Legislature has engrafted certain exceptions upon this rule contained in sections 234, 235, 236 and 239”. Their Lordships were concerned with the incidents which the accused, after having started from a police station had committed a series of acts involving killing, injuring people, unlawfully confining others and extorting moneys from one of them and held that the trial was not vitiated as there was no misjoinder of charges. A decision of the Andhra High Court in R.T. No. 79 of 1954 and Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1954 in In re Srinivasa Rao4has interpreted the word “same transaction” in section 235 in the light of the observations contained in the decision in Choragudi Venkatadri and others v. The Emperor5. However it may be observed that all these reported decisions have not dealt with cases arising out of the Factories Act nor are they in regard to such statutory offences which are in respect of irregularities which, when committed by an occupier or a manager of a factory are made punishable under a single provision like section 92. However it may be observed that all these reported decisions have not dealt with cases arising out of the Factories Act nor are they in regard to such statutory offences which are in respect of irregularities which, when committed by an occupier or a manager of a factory are made punishable under a single provision like section 92. These cases relate to situations where more persons than one committed more than one offence or the same person committed any number of offences for which there could be a joint trial. In the instant case, the several offences committed by the accused are in respect of management of the factory and dereliction of duties statutorily enjoined upon the occupier or manager either successively repeated or in respect of several particulars by the persons concerned in the management which cannot but be said to have community of purpose and continuity of action. It is not as though the occupier or manager of a factory, while violating to observe the injunctions or directions contained in the Factories Act, has not purposely perpetrated the infractions against Rules and provisions of the Act; nor can it be said that when a person like the Inspector of Factories apprises him of the irregularities which he found on his visit and demands that these be set right, the non-compliance with such demands would not indicate the continuity of action on the part of the Manager. It could not but be said that in such a case the accused is continuing to act in contravention against the code of conduct necessary to be observed for healthy, efficient and proper management of the factory. In such circumstances, I have little hesitation in holding that the two tests which have been adumbrated in the earliest decision viz., Choragudi Venkatadri and others v. The Emperor1are fully satisfied and that therefore, the trial falls under section 235, Criminal Procedure Code. It is also hardly necessary for me, therefore, to consider a few other decisions cited at the Bar as they merely restate the position in regard to the tests, and do not ad I anything more useful to the discussion. It may, however, be pointed out that the question of prejudice to the accused, which has been held by the lower Court as not very material in view of section 537 as amended, may be looked at from another aspect. It may, however, be pointed out that the question of prejudice to the accused, which has been held by the lower Court as not very material in view of section 537 as amended, may be looked at from another aspect. The statutory injunctions provided in the Criminal Procedure Code in regard to joinder of charges are mainly with a view that no Court or jury should get confused as may be the case when several charges in regard to many accused are jumbled up and also for the accused not to be prejudiced by having to answer innumerable charges of involved nature. But, in case where these defects can be easily avoided, the mere violation of a technicality should not matter. This is also the purpose for the insertion of clause (b) in section 537, Criminal Procedure Code. In cases where a contravention of a few particulars which are in the nature of technical rules in managing the factory, about which accusation neither the Court nor the accused could be said to be in such a difficult situation, any misjoinder of charges would hardly result in prejudice to the accused. It is not, therefore, at all necessary in a case like this to consider whether any prejudice has been caused at all; for indeed there will be none so long as the stamp of simplicity in procedure for proper management is the singular feature of the rules and provisions of the Factories Act. In the result the petition is dismissed. A.S.R. ----- Petition dismissed.