Short Note : 1. The only contention raised on behalf of the applicant was that according to the findings reached by the learned Sessions Judge holding that additional evidence was necessary, the appeal should have been dealt in accordance with the provisions of section 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which applies to the present case. The argument was that instead of remanding the case back for retrial, the learned Sessions Judge should have either himself proceeded to record the additional evidence which he found necessary or should have directed the trial Court to record the same and on receipt of the said evidence, the appeal should have been decided by the appellate Court. 2. The language of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quite clear. The learned Sessions Judge erred in law in not proceeding with the appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 428 of the Code. The application is therefore, allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The criminal appeal is remanded back to the Sessions Judge with the direction that either he should himself take the additional evidence or direct the Magistrate to record the same and certify to the appellate Court and after the additional evidence has been brought on record in the manner provided and if it is found that there is any incriminating material, which needs to be put to the accused applicant, the same may be done by examining the accused afresh and the appeal shall, thereafter, be decided. Revision allowed.