IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.593 of 2009 1. Md. Firoz 2. Tafazzul. Both sons of Sahammat Mian, resident of Mohalla- Purab Sarai (near Chhoti Masjid) P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Abdul Salam Aarif, son of Naiman Haque, resident of Mohalla- Aab Gola (Jagdishpur) P.S. Muffasil Gaya, District- Gaya. .. Opposite Parties. ----- For the petitioners :Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Adv. :Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the O. P. No.2: Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Satyaveer, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dinesh Singh, APP ----------- 4. 05.09.2011 The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 9.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2008 by which the petition dated 28.1.2009 filed by the petitioners under Section 228 Cr.P.C., has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to FIR no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 376 I.P.C. and the learned trial Court has also considered that the offence against the petitioners is made out 2 under sections 323 and 379 I.P.C. as such the case of the petitioners should be tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate and not before the Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the occurrence has taken place in the same transaction as such the trial cannot be separated in view of Section 223 Cr.P.C. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the contention of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is correct. In view of Section 223 Cr.P.C. the persons accused of the offence committed in course of same transaction shall be tried together. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)