The court emphasized the need for judicial officers to deliver coherent judgments, consider the consequences of their orders, and properly apply their minds to determine the adequacy of sentences.

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties.

2. Both these proceedings, i.e. criminal writ petition as well as criminal revision, are arising between the same parties and the original proceeding between them was also one, though the learned Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court has delivered two different judgments; yet in order to avoid repetitions, the writ petition and the revision are proposed to be heard together and disposed off by a common judgment.

3. Before proceeding, at the outset, it is once again required to be observed by this court that the approach of judicial officers, in delivering two separate or different judgments, though they arise out of the same judgment and order, is required to be deprecated.

4. In the present case, the respondent had filed a complaint on 10.7.2003 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing Summary Criminal Case No.221/2003 and it came to be decided by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Ahmednagar on 22.3.2018. The accused was convicted and then he filed Criminal Appeal No.82/2018 before the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar to challenge the conviction; whereas Criminal revision No.85/2018 was filed by original complainant for enhancement. The criminal appeal as well as criminal revision were decided by the same Presiding Officer on 25.11.2019. However, as aforesaid, two different judgments have been delivered by him.

It is to be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing separate judgments in Criminal Revision, has stated that, "Both the appeal and the revision are decided at one and the same time. The reasons assigned in the appeal, while dismissing the said appeal, are the same reasons for allowing present revision application. Since, both the proceedings are distinct and filed under different two provisions, the jurisdiction was required to be exercised distinctly and, therefore, both are not decided by common judgment." These observations or the reasons assigned for delivering two different judgments are not based on sound legal provisions/propositions. Though jurisdiction to be exercised by the concerned court was distinct; yet one proceeding has bearing over the other and they both were either inter-connected or inter-mingled and, therefore, there ought not to have been separate judgments. Inconvenience to the parties as well as from the point of judicial propriety also, such practice deserves to be deprecated.

5. It will not be out of place to refer to some of the observations, that have been made by this Court, deprecating such practice, in a civil matter, i.e. Second Appeal No.153/2017 with SA No. 154/2017 decided on 13.8.2019 Vikas Shivdas Patil Vs. Sow. Gitanjali Vikas Patil. The said observations read thus, :

"..........Though both the matters were between the same parties, wife had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights whereas husband was asking divorce. Both the Courts below ought to have given a common Judgment so as to avoid any contrary observations, so also to have a compact view of the dispute between the parties and the adjudication thereof. It would be a harsh statement to make, but it has to be made just to get some disposal units, if such practice is adopted then it is depricable. The parties approaching the Court should get clear idea as to why their petition/ petitions have been either allowed or rejected and when the evidence has been led in one of the matters only, then just by taking a pursis in another matter, it is not appropriate on the part of the trial Court to pronounce a total separate Judgments in order to create any confusion. Here in this case trial Court in both the matters had given the Judgment on the same day in both the matters when in fact a common Judgment could have been given. Points for consideration in such matters would be overlapping and under s