JUDGMENT Lindsay, J. - These references Nos. 103 and 109 of 1923, relate to two cases against the same accused Bulaki. He was convicted of two separate offences of theft, the subject-matter of the theft in each case being a goat. In one case the goat was valued at Rs. 8 and in the other it was valued at Rs. 10. Bulaki was sentenced in each case to three months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. In appeal the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, Mr. Muhammad Shafi, has set aside these convictions on the ground that the record in the Magistrate's Court had not been properly prepared. The learned Judge refers to the provisions of section 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. But as pointed out by the learned District Magistrate, section 356 has nothing to do with the cases which were before the Court below. The section which was applicable was 355. It is quite clear that each of the cases against the accused Bulaki was a case of theft u/s 379 in which the value of the property stolen did not exceed Rs. 50. It was therefore a case within section 260 (1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that being so the procedure at the trial is regulated by section 355 and not 356. The learned Judge was therefore wrong in thinking that it was obligatory on the Magistrate to keep a record of the evidence in vernacular. All that he was required to do was to make a memorandum of the evidence of each witness and that be has undoubtedly done. I reverse the order of the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside these convictions and direct that the convictions shall stand. If the accused is on bail he will surrender and serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.