Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This is an application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.1998 passed in Cr.Appeal No.224 of 1991 by Shri Ishwar Chandra Sudhir, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna by which he had dismissed the appeal and had confirmed the judgment and order dated 30.9.1991 passed by Shri Md. Akram Rizvi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Case No.97 (C)/87 by which Tr. No. 553/91 the learned Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, bail bond was not cancelled. 2. In this petition it has been contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had summarily dismissed the appeal without discussing the evidence on record and without arriving at his own findings for the sole reason that the trial court considered every thing and its judgment is comprehensive. He had not considered the relevant submissions made before him on behalf of the petitioner and he dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. In the case the complaint petition was not proved before the trial court. The paper cuttings which were in possession of the complainant were also not produced before the trial court. The learned trial court committed an error in holding that the complainant (P.W.4) had stated about the payment of Rs. 500/- in paragraph 21 of her evidence. The evidence of D.W.1 has not been properly considered. The audit report was not taken into consideration and no case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. In her evidence P.W.1 Budhiya Devi (mother-in-law of the complainant) had supported the defence of the petitioner. Her evidence was, however, brushed aside by the learned trial court on the ground that she did not turn up for her cross-examination though it was the duty imposed on the learned Judicial Magistrate to call P.W.1 for her cross examination. 3. From the prosecution case it appears that the present petitioner and the husband of the complainant were posted in the same offence. Her husband died on 24.12.1984. Subsequently the present petitioner informed the complainant (P.W.4) that a sum of Rs. 5000/- in cash and employment to her son was to be provided as per the resolution passed in the office. From the prosecution case it appears that the present petitioner and the husband of the complainant were posted in the same offence. Her husband died on 24.12.1984. Subsequently the present petitioner informed the complainant (P.W.4) that a sum of Rs. 5000/- in cash and employment to her son was to be provided as per the resolution passed in the office. On this pretext he demanded and got Rs. 500/- from P.W.4 as the security money. When after lapse of a long time neither the said amount was returned back to P.W.4 nor her son was given any employment, the present case was filed in which the cognizance of offence was taken under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner was summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate. On his appearance the charge under this section was framed against him. The petitioner had contended that he was falsely implicated in this case. In course of the trial four P.Ws. were examined. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the sons of P.W.4. The defence examined only one witness. The allegations made in the complaint petition are all false. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had not passed the impugned judgment in confirmity with section 354 of the Code. He has not incorporated the cogent reasons for not confirming the judgment of conviction. The impugned judgment does not contain the discussions of the evidence and is not fit to be sustained in the eyes of law. From paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned lower appellate court has not discussed the evidence on record only because the trial court had discussed it and had considered all the materials. He has not assigned any reason for accepting the findings of the trial court though under law he has to arrive at his own conclusions independently. It is not proper for the appellate court to simply ditto the findings of the trial court without any discussions. The learned lower appellate court has not taken into consideration the non-examination of the material witnesses. Both the courts below have committed error of law in not giving the benefits of section 360 of the Code to the petitioners. On these grounds, amongst other, it has been contended that the impugned judgment on appeal arising out of judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate be quashed. 5. Both the courts below have committed error of law in not giving the benefits of section 360 of the Code to the petitioners. On these grounds, amongst other, it has been contended that the impugned judgment on appeal arising out of judgment of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate be quashed. 5. The parties have been heard in detail on the various points raised by them. In this connection firstly my attention has been drawn to the impugned judgment dated 4.5.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am yet to come across a more perfunctory judgment passed by the Senior Judicial Officers of the rank of Additional Sessions Judge. He has not taken the care to examine the materials on record and to come to any right conclusion. He has held that the present appeal was not maintainable and hence the same is dismissed. He confirmed the judgment and order under appeal. The whole judgment shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not applied his mind and has not taken care to come to any correct conclusion based on sound reasonings. He has not taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the law on the subject before coming to any conclusion in the matter. 6. In this connection reference may be made to section 386 of the Code which provides for the powers to the appellate court. According to this section it is obligatory on the part of the appellate court to (i) peruse the record of the case, (ii) to hear the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, (iii) to hear the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, (iv) in case of an appeal under sections 377 and 378 to hear the accused if he appears and only after that he may proceed to dismiss the appeal if he finds that there is no sufficient ground for interfering. In the impugned order there is nothing to show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has applied himself to the materials available on the record. The grounds urged before him in the appeal were that the trial court did not rely upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and then drew adverse inference on account of non-examination of the material witnesses. The grounds urged before him in the appeal were that the trial court did not rely upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and then drew adverse inference on account of non-examination of the material witnesses. It has been further observed as follows in the impugned order: ".........the trial court below did not call for relevant papers from the Corporation Office to unfold the truth and the prosecution has thoroughly failed to prove ill motive of the appellant to cheat". In paragraph 3 he has further observed that the prosecution has successfully established the charge of cheating against the appellant and, therefore, he was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the next paragraph he has stated that he found this appeal not maintainable. It is not clear what he has meant by saying so. Being not maintainable is different from an appeal being without any merit but he is not clear on this point. 7. In this connection I will next refer to section 387 of the Code which reads as follows: "387Judgments of subordinate Appellate Court.The rules contained in Chapter XXVII as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment in appeal of a Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate: Provided that, unless the appellate Court otherwise directs, the accused shall not be brought up, or required to attend, to hear judgment delivered." 8. This takes up to Chapter XXVII whose section 354 is relevant. It provides that the language and contents of the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction shall (i) contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision; (ii) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced; (iii) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty. 9. From the aforesaid it would appear that in the judgment of the trial court as also of the lower appellate court as per section 387 the Code must contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. 9. From the aforesaid it would appear that in the judgment of the trial court as also of the lower appellate court as per section 387 the Code must contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In the present case as will appear from the impugned judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not cared to pass the judgment in accordance with section 354 read with section 387 of the Code. On this ground the impugned judgment is bad and is liable to be set aside. 10. From the judgment of the trial court it appears that P.W.1 could not appear for her cross examination after charge. In paragraph 5 of the judgment the learned trial court has observed that on this ground her evidence goes out of record and it can not be looked into. Probably the learned trial court was not conscious of its obligation to secure the presence of the witness for her cross examination. In this connection a reference may be made to the case of Kunj Behari Yadav V/s. Basdeo Yadav and others (A.I.R. 1958 Patna 104). It is a Bench decision of this Court and relates to sections 256 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Old Code). The provisions contained in section 256 of the Old Code roughly correspond to sub section (4) of section 247 of the present Code according to which the accused shall be required to state at the commencement of the next hearing of the case whether he wishes to cross examine any and which of the witness for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. Sub section (5) further provides that the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and after cross examination they shall be discharged. Similar was the provisions under section 256 of the Old Code. In this decision it was held that section 256 casts the duty of recalling the prosecution witnesses for cross examination after the charge upon the Magistrate. It is not the duty of the complainant to procure the attendance of his witness. If the Magistrate did not secure the attendance of the witness for cross examination after charge it was held to be a failure on his part. It is not the duty of the complainant to procure the attendance of his witness. If the Magistrate did not secure the attendance of the witness for cross examination after charge it was held to be a failure on his part. In the present case P.W.1 has not appeared for her cross examination and the learned trial court has not taken any step to secure her presence. This can not be said to be proper and even the lower appellate court in its judgment has not taken any serious notice of it. 11. Another thing to be noticed in this connection is that in the impugned judgment the learned lower appellate court has simply stated that the judgment and order of the learned trial court is comprehensive one wherein the court below before coming to a conclusion has discussed and considered all the materials available on record. He has himself not tried to assess the materials on record and to come to an independent conclusion apart from the one arrived at by the trial court. This is not expected of the learned lower appellate court. It was his duty as also noticed in section 354 of the Code to formulate the point or points for determination. He has not done so. 12. From the detailed discussions made above it becomes perfectly clear to me that the impugned judgment can not be allowed to stand. It is, accordingly, quashed. The case is remanded back to the learned lower appellate court for proceeding in the appeal in the light of the observations made above. It should rehear the appeal after giving notices to both the parties and dispose it off in accordance with law.