1. The chief point pressed upon us on behalf of the accused is that the trial is rendered invalid by the fact that the charge alleges the commission of theft and of criminal intimidation and unlawful assembly on the 12th August and also alleges criminal intimidation and unlawful assembly on 13th August. It is argued that the acts alleged as constituting these offences did not form part of the same transaction within the meaning of Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the Magistrate should, therefore, have tried the several offences separately. There is nothing to show that the accused took the objection before the Magistrate. So he has not discussed it, but they did take it before the Sessions Judge on appeal, and he has found that there was no illegality in the frame of the charge. We think that the Sessions Judge is right. The theft of the sheep was not committed secretly by the accused, but openly, at sunset, while people were still about, and when the owner remonstrated he was threatened by the accused and driven into his house and confined there until late at night, and on the next morning the accused again came to his house and renewed the threats and intimidation.
2. These facts support the conclusion of the Sessions Judge that the purpose of the accused throughout was to demonstrate their power over the complainant, in fact, bully and intimidiate him. Having regard to this purpose which actuated the accused throughout, we think that the theft, the remonstrance by the owner of the sheep and the unlawful assembly and intimidation, which immediately followed on that day and which was continued next day, may properly be regarded as all forming parts of the same transaction within the meaning of Section 235, Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The trial was, therefore, not invalid, and we dismiss this petition. The accused who are on bail must be re-committed to jail.