Accused Ahad Dar was convicted in seven cases under S. 188 R. P. C. and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment in each case by the Tehsildar Magistrate Srinagar. These Prosecutions were launched against him for his having remained absent on various dates from his residence contrary to the order of the District Superintendent of Police which was to the effect that Ahad Dar, on account of his being a bad character subject to police surveillance, should not remain absent from his residence without getting previous permission for doing so. Against these seven convictions recorded in seven different trials the accused preferred seven separate appeals to the Sessions Judge, Kashmir. The Sessions Judge dealt with these seven cases by three judgments. By one judgment he dealt with appeals No. 15, 17, 18 and 20, By another judgment he dealt with appeals No. 16 and 19 and by third he dealt with appeal No. 21. He recorded an acquittal in appeals No. 17,18,19 and 21 and maintained the sentence in the other three cases, i.e. appeals No. 15,16 and 20. Before proceeding further, I would like to put on record that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in writing consolidated judgments in cases which are separate and wherein trials have also been conducted separately, is not at all proper. This practice is neither warranted by law, nor by any considerations of convenience. Such type of judgments, far from contributing to speedy disposal of cases, take a lot of time in trying together facts in the labyrinthine mess in which the appeals are cast by adopting such a procedure. I am of the opinion that in case of every separate trial separate judgment should be passed. Such type of judgments, far from contributing to speedy disposal of cases, take a lot of time in trying together facts in the labyrinthine mess in which the appeals are cast by adopting such a procedure. I am of the opinion that in case of every separate trial separate judgment should be passed. In A. I. R. 1920 Allahabad 79 it has been held "In the case of two separate trials, where the law requires a judgment to be written in each it is improper to record a single judgment." In the same judgment we find that "If two separate cases are so closely connected together that the trial Court thinks a single judgment would sufficiently cover the two separate cases, the best course to adopt is to write a detailed judgment containing a complete recital of the facts in what seems to be the more important of the two cases, and it would not be objectionable as a rule to refer to such recital in the separate judgment recorded on the less important cases." From this passage also, it becomes abundantly clear that the necessity of writing separate judgment in each case is not dispensed with. In A. I. R. 1928 Cal. 230 there were two separate cases in each of which the accused was convicted by the trial Court. An appeal was brought in each case. The appellate Court tried the two appeals together as one case and allowed one of the appeals and dismissed the other. On these facts it was held therein that "the procedure followed was bad." In the present appeals before the Sessions Judge, it may be observed that the cases were separate, the facts were different and the trials also were separate and I wonder how the learned Sessions Judge wrote consolidated judgments. As already pointed out above, it is only in closely connected case that a detailed judgment containing a complete recital of the facts may be written in one case, but even then a separate judgment, though less detailed, cannot be dispensed with in the other case. I trust that this direction will be borne in mind in future. As already pointed out above, it is only in closely connected case that a detailed judgment containing a complete recital of the facts may be written in one case, but even then a separate judgment, though less detailed, cannot be dispensed with in the other case. I trust that this direction will be borne in mind in future. In Revision No. 40 pending before me, the accused Ahad Dar was convicted by the Tehsildar Magistrate Srinagar under S. 188 R. P. C. and sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment for remaining absent from his residence without permission on the night falling between 12th-13th Assuj 2005. On appeal the Sessions Judge maintained both the conviction and sentence. The accused admits that he has been recorded as a bad character subject to police surveillance and that he knew that he could not leave his residence without permission from the proper authorities. But he pleads that he was present on the night in question at his own residence and that the police have started this prosecution against him for the reason that he had failed to grease their palm. Ahad Dar constable and Arjun Nath Officer-in-charge Police Chowki Shadipura state that the accused was not present at his residence on the night in question. No defence evidence has been led by the accused and there is no reason to disturb the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the courts below. This revision petition is therefore rejected.