Criminal judgment must rest on evidence in that case alone; mixing records from connected matters is impermissible.

Section 353 CrPC requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused, so a criminal decision must rest only on the evidence adduced in that specific case. The appellate court could not import evidence from one connected case into another or dispose of both matters through a common judgment that intermingled the records. That approach was procedurally unsound and contrary to law, so the judgment under challenge was set aside and the connected appeals were directed to be reheard separately in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court could rely on evidence recorded in one criminal case while deciding another connected case, and whether such a common approach vitiated the judgment.

Analysis: Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused, and by necessary implication an order in each case must rest on the evidence adduced in that case. The evidence in one case cannot be freely imported into another, and each matter must be dealt with separately on its own record. The common judgment adopted by the appellate court, which intermingled the evidence of the two cases, was therefore procedurally unsound and contrary to law.

Conclusion: The procedure adopted was illegal, and the judgment was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the judgment under challenge was reversed, and the connected appeals were directed to be reheard separately in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal decision must be founded only on the evidence recorded in that case, and evidence from another case cannot be used against an accused unless lawfully adduced in his own proceeding.

---