( 1 ) THE point involved in this Revision Application is whether the petitioners who are the accused can be tried together for the offence of defamation contemplated by sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the provisions contained in sec. 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision application are that the petitioners Nos. 4 5 and 7 signed one application on 19th June 1970 making certain allegations against the character of opponent No. 1 Rekhaben and alleging that she was causing nuisance in the neighbour hood as certain undesired elements were visiting her house. This application was submitted to Jyoti Sangh. The Jyoti Sangh authorities in their turn forwarded this application to the police as a result of which the police undertook some investigation. During the course of this investigation the police recorded the statements of petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 on 23rd June 1970 and of petitioner No. 7 on 25th June 1970 During these statements all the petitioners supported the application made by the petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 to the Jyoti Sangh and repeated the allegations against the character of the opponent No. 1 Rekhaben.

( 3 ) THE opponent No. 1 thereafter filed a complaint for defamation punishable under sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code against these petitioners in the 5th City Magistrate Court at Ahmedabad where the said complaint is registered as criminal case No. 1254 of 1970. The complaint is that all the petitioners have defamed the complainant opponent No. 1 by making false allegations against her chastity during the course of their statements recorded by the head constable Abhaysinh Prithvising. On this complaint the learned Magistrate recorded some evidence and thereafter framed a charge against all the petitioners for the offence under sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Before this charge was framed the petitioners submitted an application to the learned Magistrate raising a contention that defamation which is said to have been committed by each of the petitioners being an act complete in itself the petitioners should be tried separately and not jointly in one trial. The learned Magistrate has rejected this contention and has framed the charge as said above. Being aggrieved by this action of the learned Magistrate the petitioners have approached this court in this revision.

( 4 ) SHRI Bhatt who appeared on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the act of defamation said to have been committed by each of the petitioners is separate distinct and complete in itself and therefore the alleged offence of defamation is committed by each of the petitioners individually on different occasions and that being so the learned Magistrate could not have framed one charge against all the petitioners. According to Shri Bhatt the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate therefore offends the provisions contained in sec. 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As against this it was contended on behalf of the opponents including the State that the several acts of defamation which are said to have been committed by the petitioners are committed during the course of the same transaction and therefore one and the same charge can be framed against all the petitioners as contemplated by clause (a) of sec. 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 5 ) SEC. 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes what persons may be charged jointly. Clause (a) thereof says that the persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together. The section therefore contemplates that even if the action complained of is committed by several persons individually all these persons can be charged and tried together in the same trial if it is found that the acts have been committed in the course of the same transaction. Under the circumstances the pertinent point to be considered is whether the acts of the petitioners which are complained of are f