Continuous SENTENCES REDUCE TOTAL Length OF IMPRISONMENT
Why would a plaintiff ask for a registration of costs when the rule requiring individual testing for independent charges is intended to ensure justice to the accused?
More frequently than not, it is the trial who normally requests that several charges been heard at the same test. Indeed, in Iswaran’s case, the prosecution had gone as far as to (unsuccessfully ) argue that only the prosecution could apply for a joinder of claims under the Criminal Procedure Code.
A second test for all charges would also help the accused to save on constitutional costs, just as effective court proceedings would keep judge resources. It might also lessen the mental strain that is frequently associated with criminal trials.  ,
Furthermore, in some cases, instead of causing discrimination, having several charges heard together in the same test may gain the accused.
Second, if the accused uses the exact defense for all costs, a combined trial allows them to speak only once. Testifying across several tests can lead to inconsistencies in one’s evidence, yet for a candid witness. Such contradictions may be identified and attacked by the trial.
Additionally, if the accused person is convicted of charges that are heard in the same test, the judge may order some sentences to run continuously, thus reducing the overall duration of imprisonment. This cannot be done for charges that have been heard in separate trials.