( 1 ) ON the morning of 23rd August, 1972 at Nelamakanahalli, Channapatna taluk, PW. 1 Mayamma, her son PW. 2 and daughter-in-law had gone to the fields for work, On returning home they found the lock of the door of their house open. On entering into the house, they found MOa. 1 to 5, all articles of gold, stolen. PW. 1 lodged a complaint in the Akkur Police station. The police submitted a 'c' report treating the case. as undetectable. ( 2 ) MORE than a year later, on 29-11-1973 PW. 7 constable Arasiah apprehended the accused at the Nunoor bus-stand and produced him before the psi PW. 10 with his. report Ex, P5. Events followed in lightning succession, an almost incredible feat. On the same day as per the information Ex. P7 given by the accused, the PSI. PW. 10 is said to have- recovered MQs. 2 to-5 from PW. 3 krisnegowda of Sargur village. These MQs were alleged to have been kept with him by the accused. Ex -. P2 is the mahazar. On that very same day the PSI PW. 10 as. per the alleged in-formation ex. P7 itself given by the accused, seized MO. 1 from the pawnbroker PW. 5 Shankarlal, said to have been pledged with him by the accused on 25-9-1971 as per the original of Ex. P3 (a ). ( 3 ) WHEN questioned under S. 342 Crpc, (Old) the plea of the accused was one of innocence. ( 4 ) IN CC. 3491 of 1973 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramanagaram, convicted the accused as charged. The order portion of the judgment at para 10 is as below :"10. Under S. 251 (A) (12) Crpc of 1898, I convict the accused of the offences under Se. 454 and 380 IPC and sentence him to undergo three months on each count. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 on each count, in delault to pay the said fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days on each count. Further the substantive sentence of three months passed under S. 454 IPC shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence of three months passed under Section 380 IPC. " ( 5 ) THE accused went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Revenui district, Bangalore in Crl App 33 of 1974. The appeal was dismissed. Further the substantive sentence of three months passed under S. 454 IPC shall run concurrently with the substantive sentence of three months passed under Section 380 IPC. " ( 5 ) THE accused went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Revenui district, Bangalore in Crl App 33 of 1974. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision petition by the accused. ( 6 ) SRI G. K. Venkanniah, petitioner's learned Advocate, has raised the following circumstances for the remand of the case to the trial Court: under Chapter X-Miscellaneous Matters-of the Mysore (Karnataka) Criminal rules of Practice, 1968, Rule 14 (1) is as below :"whenever the Magistrate is of the opinion that an article produced before the Court is made of gold or silver or contains precious stones and that the value is not less than Rs. 200, he shall get the same tested and its value estimated by a goldsmith or a bank appraiser or any otner expert available. . . . . . . and his statement in that behalf, shall be recorded on oath. " (Emphasis supplied ). The Magistrate followed the mandatory provisions of the above rule and examined on oath on 4-12-1973 one T. Thammiah Char, Goldsmith and appraiser of Vijaya Bank, regarding the weight and the value of the MOs. There are seen to be discrepancies in the weights and values as found in the seizure mahazar and the weights and values as determined by the above person. Both the Courts below completely lost sight of the statement given on oath by Thammiah Char. ( 7 ) THE pawn-broker PW. 5 has deposed that it was the accused himself who pledged MO. 1 Gold kappa with him and put his thumb impression both on the original of Ex. P3 (a) and P3. The accused has deaied this. It is seen from Ex. P3 (a) that the name of the pawnor is shown as Dasegowda and PW. 5 says that the accused gave this as his name. Actually the name of the accused is Sannaputtiah. In this state of circumstances, the thumb impression on Ex. P3 (a) being very clear, and the science of linger prints being accurate, it was the duty of the Magistrate to have sent ex. P3 (a) to the Finger Print Expert for comparison with the admitted finger prints of the accused. Actually the name of the accused is Sannaputtiah. In this state of circumstances, the thumb impression on Ex. P3 (a) being very clear, and the science of linger prints being accurate, it was the duty of the Magistrate to have sent ex. P3 (a) to the Finger Print Expert for comparison with the admitted finger prints of the accused. This was not done and it is yet another serious lacuna in the assessment of the evidence by both the Courts below. ( 8 ) AGAIN, we find from the records of the Sessions Court that two advocates filed their memo of appearance for the accused (appellant there) on 21-12-1974. The following is the entry in the order-sheet of that Court beaming date 8-1-1976 :"advocate and appellant absent The PP is present Heard the pp. Judgment on 20-1-1976. "judgment was pronounced on 20-1-1976. At least one of the two Advocates of the accused ought to have been present in Court on 8-1-1976 and made some representation. Between 8-1-1976 and 20-1-1976 there was a gap of twelve days. Even then no petition was filed on behalf of the accused to reopen the case and hear the arguments on behalf of the accused. The case of the accused before the Sessions Court thus seems to have went abeg- ging and serious prejudice has been caused to him. The judgment of the sessions Court is almost an abbreviated carbon copy of the judgment of the trial Court. Being the final Court of fact, the Sessions Judge was in duty bound to re-assess the entire material on record. ( 9 ) IN the light of all the above mentioned acceptable reasons set out by Sri Venkanniah, this revision petition has to be allowed, and is allowed. Both the judgments and orders of the Courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for disposal according to law, bearing in mind the observations contained in this judgment. Both sides will be given an opportunity to further examine the witnesses-in-chief and cross- examine them. --- *** --- .