J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) * * * * ( 3 ) A chargesheet was submitted against the present respondent Harishbhai Narsinhbhai and three others in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Surat for several offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as narrated above The trial Court proceeded against the three accused while the trial against the present respondent was separated because he could not he traced. The learned Magistrate before whom the three accused were tried on appreciating the evidence acquitted the said three accused by his judgment and order date 29 Thereafter it seems that the proselyte responddent could he traced and trial trial him was started. It appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not record any fresh evidence but recorded the statement of this respondent with regard to the evidence which was already recorded earlier in the trial against the other accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by a very short and cryptic order passed on 29 acquitted the present respondent observing that he had already given reasons in his judgment Ex. 46 while acquitting the other accused and it was not necessary to reiterate those reasons again and there was no reason to take a different view of the matter and. therefore he was inclined to acquit the respondent. Being dissatisfied by this order of acquittal. the present appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) IT is obvious on the face of it that there was no trial at all in the eye of law so far as the present respondent is concerned. The evidence was recorded in the trial against the other three accused. The present respondent was not tried alongwith them. The evidence recorded in that trial against the other three accused cannot he taken into consideration at all at she trail against the present respondent. When the trial was required to be held against the presentspondent fresh evidence was required to be recorded and then the judgment was required to be pronounced. On the basis of that fresh evidence. The evidence recorded in that trial against the other three accused cannot he taken into consideration at all at she trail against the present respondent. When the trial was required to be held against the presentspondent fresh evidence was required to be recorded and then the judgment was required to be pronounced. On the basis of that fresh evidence. It is startling and surprising that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without recording any evidence whatsoever straightway proceeded to record the statement of the present respondent with regard to the evidence which was recorded against other accused when evidence cannot be taken into consideration at all and then proceeded to dispose of the matter in a very cryptic way as stated earlier. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate being the result of a trial which cannot be said to be a trial at all the said order is required to be set aside. In the case of Koli Raja Sarwan v. The State of Gujarat 7 G. L. R. 514 it appears that there were five different sessions cases against the very two accused arising out of five different chargesheets filed against them. In the first sessions case. the evidence was recorded and thereafter with the consent of the advocates copies of the evidence oral and documentary were placed on record of other four cases and treated as part of the record in these four cases. This Court while dealing with these matters observed that the evidence on which the Court proceeds to deliver the judgment must be evidence recorded in the trial and the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a trial on evidence which is not recorded in that trial. This Court also observed that the consent of the advocate in support of the procedure adopted cannot justify the non-observance of the provisions of law relating to the manner of a criminal trial. The procedure to be followed by the Sessions Court is laid down in sec. 286. 288 289 and 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code An infringement of these provisions of law is an infringement of the provisions relating to the mode of trial. Such an infringement was not curable under sec. . 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code Where the procedure laid down by the Code was fol lowed but has not been. 286. 288 289 and 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code An infringement of these provisions of law is an infringement of the provisions relating to the mode of trial. Such an infringement was not curable under sec. . 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code Where the procedure laid down by the Code was fol lowed but has not been. wholly followed the irregularity would be curable under this provision but not where the procedure laid down in the Code is wholly departed from as in this case. In the present case the trial Court has not at all proceeded with the trial as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which require the Court to record the evidence of witnesses in the presence of wine accused or his advocate at the trial against hint and then rector the statement of the accused under sec. 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code and then deliver the judgment. Such a procedure having not been following in this case the ratio of the decision of this Court in the above case applies with greater force in the present case. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting with this case I am constrained to say that it is shocking that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of the standing of more than 10 to 12 years as a Judicial Officer committed such a grave and glaring error of law in disposing of the case without following the procedure laid down in the Criminal learned Code for trial of a warrant case. I fail to understand as to how the learned Judicial Magistrate proceeded to at upon the evidence recorded in the trial against three other accused in violation of she pro. visions of the Code. even though this Court many years back deprecated the practice of treating the evidence in one case as evidence in other by bringing on record the copies of the same in the case of Koli Raja Sarwan v. State of Gujarat (supra ). It is not necessary to emphasise that a trial in a criminal case is required to he held as per the procedure laid down in the Cr. Pr Code. A criminal case calomel be disposed of in a manner in which the case was disposed fill the present case. Appeal allowed. .