( 1 ) THESE two criminal appeals arise from a common judgment delivered by additional sessions judge, Bangalore rural district, Bangalore in S. C. no. 28 of 1986 and S. C. No. 53 of 1983. Criminal appeal No. 443 of 1988 arises from S. C. No. 28 of 1986 and criminal appeal No. 502 of 1988 arises from S. C. No. 53 of 1983.

( 2 ) IN S. C. No. 28 of 1986, there were 4 accused and the learned sessions judge framed charges under Section 324 read with Section 34 and Section 326 read with Section 34, IPC that in furtherance of common intention of all these accused, hurt was caused to charge-sheet witness No. 3-shivappa by means of iron rod and grievous hurt was caused to charge-sheet witness No. 2-puttegowda by a gandu kodli.

( 3 ) IN S. C. No. 53 of 1983, there were 6 accused and charges had been framed against them under sections 143,147,341,326 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. The incidents in both the cases are stated to have taken place on 1-5-1983 at mottedoddi village of ramanagaram taluk. If it is the case of the prosecution in S. C. No. 28 of 1986 that the incident took place at 7 a. m. its case in S. C. No. 53 of 1983 is that the incident took place at 7. 30 a. m.

( 4 ) P. WS. 1,2, 3 and 4 examined in S. C. No. 28 of 1986 are respectively accused nos. 1,3,2 and 4 in S. C. No. 53 of 1983. P. ws. 2,6 and 7 examined in S. C. No. 53 of 1983 are respectively accused nos. 4,3 and 1 in S. C. No. 28 of 1986.

( 5 ) LEARNED sessions judge recorded evidence in each of these cases separately but disposed of both the cases by a common judgment he held that guilt of the accused in s. c, No. 28 of 1986 for the offence under Section 324, IPC had been established and therefore convicted them and sentenced them to undergo r. i. for 3 months. So far as S. C. No. 53 of 1983 is concerned, he acquitted accused nos. 5 and 6 and also acquitted accused nos. 1 to 4 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307, CPC. However, he convicted them for offences under sections 324 and 326, IPC and sentenced them to undergo r. i. for a period of 6 months. The respective accused who have been convicted in these two cases by the learned sessions judge by this common judgment have preferred these two appeals.

( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate for the appellants in crl. A. No. 443 of 1988 urged that the procedure adopted by the learned sessions judge in delivering a common judgment in respect of two cases is highly illegal and therefore the convictions and sentences awarded should be set aside and that the matter should be remitted back to the learned sessions judge. Learned Advocate for the appellants in crl. A. No. 502 of 1988 though did not urge for remand of the case, conceded that the procedure adopted by the learned sessions judge in delivering a common judgment in respect of the two cases is illegal. Learned high court government pleader also stated that the procedure adopted by the learned sessions judge in delivering a common judgment has vitiated the conviction and sentence awarded in both the cases and therefore the matter should be remanded after setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded in the two cases.

( 7 ) A perusal of the judgment of learned sessions judge indicates that for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion in each of the cases, he has freely made use of the evidence adduced in the other case. This aspect of the matter could not be disputed by any of the learned advocates. There was absolutely no scope for the learned sessions judge while disposing of one sessions case, to be in any way be influenced by the evidence adduced in the other case unless that is brought on record in the particular case. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Nathulal and others v State of U. P. and another, 1990 SCC (cri.) 638 has laid down the procedure that has to be adopted in respect of the trial of cross cases. It has been observed as hcreunder:"we think t