Order.- In Sessions Case No. 71 of 1964 the learned First Assistant Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicted the accused of offences under section 52 of the Indian Post Office Act read with section 34, Indian Penal Code or in the alternative under section 409 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and awarded them sentences. The two accused filed appeals, Criminal Appeals Nos. 22 and 23 of 1965, in the Sessions Court, Hyderabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (cum-Chief City Magistrate) heard these two appeals together and held that the judgment of the lower Court was vitiated by material defect of failure to examine two important witnesses. He, therefore, disposed of the appeals observing as follows: “For the aforesaid reasons I allow both these appeals and the convictions and sentences are set aside........The case is remanded to the lower Court for examining the witnesses mentioned above and also marking the document referred to above. The appellants will no doubt be given an opportunity to not only cross-examine those witnesses but also to examine any witnesses that they may consider necessary in their defence............” The learned Public Prosecutor filed these two revision petitions against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The only contention made by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the course adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was illegal as it was not in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the proper course which the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have adopted was as provided in section 428(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant portion of section 423 of Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows: “(1) The Appellate Court................................may.................. (a) ................... (b) in an appeal from a conviction (1) reverse the finding and sentence, and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or commit him for trial............” Section 428(1), Criminal Procedure Code runs as follows: “(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it think additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons, and may either take such evidence itself or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate.” It is obvious that the course adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not warranted by section 423, Criminal Procedure Code or any other provision of the Code. It was open to him to acquit the accused under section 423(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code or to keep the appeals pending on the ground that he considered additional evidence to be necessary and proceed as mentioned in section 428(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is correct and I also agree with him. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and direct him to restore the appeals to his file and proceed under section 428(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the reasons to show the need for examining the two witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate for the accused agree that it is desirable that the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself recorded the additional evidence which he considers necessary instead of directing it to be recorded by the learned First Assistant Sessions Judge. I consider that this course is desirable in the circumstances of this case. I, therefore, allow the revision petitions, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and direct him to restore the appeals to his file and proceed to dispose of the appeals according to law in the light of the above observations. A.B.K. ----- Revisions allowed; Matter remitted