Order The respondent, though served, has not appeared. What has been challenged in this revision petition is the validity of an order made under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Aurad and which in revision has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bidar. The only contention which has been urged by Mr. Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that the mandatory requirement of sub- section (6) of section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been complied with, in the present case. The learned Magistrate depended upon the evidence adduced by way of affidavits, to reach his conclusions and evidence was not recorded in the manner required under sub- section (6) of section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Naranappa v. Puttamma1, it has been pointed out by this Court that the combined effect of the provisions of sections 488(6) , 244 and 355 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that a Magistrate holding an enquiry under section 488 must make a memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness examined by each of the parties to the proceeding. It has been further pointed out that there is no provision for deciding such a case on affidavits, because whenever the Code permits decision of a matter on receipt of affidavits, specific provision has been so made. It has been held in that case that the provision prescribing the manner for recording the evidence during an enquiry under section 488(6) is mandatory and contravention of the provision by the Magistrate is not merely an error or irregularity which can be cured under section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In spite of the above clear ruling of this Court, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to decide the case on the affidavits of the parties. Strangely enough, the learned Sessions Judge has sought to distinguish the above decision of the High Court on the ground that in the present case the husband had remained ex parte. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, is clearly erroneous. As contended by Mr. Manohar Rao, Jagirdar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the necessity to comply with the mandatory requirements of sub- section (6) of section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not dependent upon a party being present or ex parte. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, is clearly erroneous. As contended by Mr. Manohar Rao, Jagirdar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the necessity to comply with the mandatory requirements of sub- section (6) of section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not dependent upon a party being present or ex parte. In order that the evidence taken will be evidence in accordance with law, it is necessary that there should be compliance with sub- section (6) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Having regard to the view that has been taken by this Court in Naranappa v. Puttamma1, the order of the learned Magistrate as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Bidar in revision, have to be set aside. They are accordingly set aside and this case is remanded to the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate Aurad, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. S.V.S.-----Orders set aside, case remanded to trial Court.