ORDER 1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the learned III ACMM, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.6410/1992 and confirmation of the same in Crl.A.No.15/1999 by the learned Presiding Officer Fast Track Court III, Bengaluru City, dated 30.1.2004. 2. The revision petitioner herein was the sole accused in C.C.No.6410/1992 and had faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The gist of the allegations made against him in the trial court is that he had treated his wife Smt. Puttalingamma @ Puttalakshmamma with cruelty after marrying her and had pressurized her to bring a sum of Rs.10,000/as dowry from the house of her parents and had received the same. In this regard he had assaulted her. The charges so framed on 3.12.1994 was denied and he had claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses inclusive of Smt. Puttalakshmamma wife of this petitioner and has got marked 4 exhibits. The accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His case is one of total denial of the allegations leveled against him. Learned Judge of the trial court has chosen to convict the accused by framing the following points for consideration as found in para 4 of the judgment: i) Whether the prosecution proves that the accused at the time of taking of marriage with CW1 on 30.4.1986 and he had taken dowry amount of Rs.10,000/and Rs.3500/for cloths and gold ornaments were also given toCW1 by her parents and after the marriage while leading married life at Hale Goddadahalli, the accused had given her mental and physical ill treatment by demanding some more dowry amount of Rs.10,000/and by giving mental and such physical illtreatment, he himself deserted his wife and went away and even his wife tried to rejoin him in the native place of accused, the accused did not allow her to joint without bringing further dow4y and thus the accused has committed an offence punishable u/S 498(A) IPC? ii) Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused at the time of marriage by taking dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- and by Rs.3500/for clothes, he has committed an offence punishable u/S 3 of DP Act? ii) Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused at the time of marriage by taking dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- and by Rs.3500/for clothes, he has committed an offence punishable u/S 3 of DP Act? iii) Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused by demanding further dowry amount of Rs.10,000/-, he has committed an offence punishable u/S 4 of D.P.Act? iv) To what order? 4. All the three points have been answered in the affirmative and ultimately, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. He is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of two years each for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and he has to undergo S.I. for three months in respect of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P.Act and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3000/and Rs.2000/- respectively. This judgment dated 30.12.1998 was called in question before the First Appellate Court by filing an appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Judge of the First Appellate court has chosen to confirm the judgment of conviction and sentence by judgment dated 30.1.2004. These concurrent findings are called in question before this court by filing revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri. Rachaiah S, learned HCGP. What is argued before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact is expected to reassess the entire evidence placed on record and it should have assigned reasons as to why it has confirmed the concurrent finding of the trial court. He has argued that the first appellate court has not at all made any such attempt and therefore, there is a glaring legal error which is very much apparent on the face of the record to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra Sri. He has argued that the first appellate court has not at all made any such attempt and therefore, there is a glaring legal error which is very much apparent on the face of the record to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 7. Per contra Sri. S Rachaiah, learned HCGP has fully supported judgments of the trial court as well as the first appellate court contending that the trial court has assigned valid and cogent reasons in convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and also to pay fine and that the first Appellate court has confirmed the concurrent finding of the trial court by assigning valid reasons. He has argued that the learned Judge of the first Appellate Court has also assigned valid and cogent reasons in para 11 to 13 of the judgment and thus confirmed the finding of the trial court and no case is made out to invoke jurisdiction of this court. 8. PW1–Puttalingamma is the wife of the petitioner. PW.2 A.C. Gowda @ Dadigowda is the owner of the house and PW3 Hanumakka is the wife of PW2. Both of them, according to the prosecution have spoken about the alleged harassment meted out by this petitioner to his wife. PW.4 Mariyappa is the brother of PW1 and PW5 –Marigowda is the son of PW2. P.W6 Anjanappa, registered the case as per Ex.P.2 and conducted initial investigation. 9. The learned Judge of the First Appellate court has assigned reasons in para 11 to 13 to uphold the judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Whether the first appellate court has really reassessed the entire evidence in right perspective while concurring with the finding of the trial court is to be looked into. In an appeal against conviction, first Appellate court must address itself both on the question of law and question of fact. The first Appellate court cannot interfere with the finding of the lower court without indicating reasons. As per the decision rendered in Vijeyendra Kumar’s case reported in 2005(9) SCC 252 , obligation is cast upon the first Appellate Criminal court to address both in regard to question of law and question of fact. The right conferred upon the accused to approach first Appellate Criminal court is a statutory right and cannot be lightly interfered with. As per the decision rendered in Vijeyendra Kumar’s case reported in 2005(9) SCC 252 , obligation is cast upon the first Appellate Criminal court to address both in regard to question of law and question of fact. The right conferred upon the accused to approach first Appellate Criminal court is a statutory right and cannot be lightly interfered with. Therefore, the first appellate court is expected to reassess the entire oral and documentary evidence. 10. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the judgment passed by the learned appellate judge are relevant and they are extracted below: 11. The trial Court after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing both parties has raised two points for consideration and answered in the affirmative and pass the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of DP Act. It can be seen from the records of the lower court in order to prove the alleged offences against the accused. The prosecution has examined in all six witnesses out of them PW1 Smt. Puttalingamma @ Puttalakshmamma who is none other than the complainant has spoken to the effect has that of the allegations made in the complaint. She has spoken in detail regarding the allegation made in the complaint and her evidence has been fully corroborated with prosecution witnesses. So far as demand of dowry and cruelty caused by the accused to his wife has been fully substantiated from the mouth of prosecution witnesses. The accused has failed to substantiate his defense though elaborately crossexamined prosecution witnesses. So far as alleged offences against accused are concerned even there are some minute contradictions the prosecution has prove the alleged offences against the accused simply because there are some discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, 2 & 5. The entire testimony of those witnesses cannot be brushed aside. Keeping in view of the fact that the material placed on record is very much clear that the accused has committed the alleged offences leveled against him. 12. The Appellant/accused has failed to substantiate his defense. The trial court has rightly considered the material on record and appreciated the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses. There are no reasons to doubt the case of the prosecution. I have scrutinized the entire material placed on record by the prosecution before the trial court. 12. The Appellant/accused has failed to substantiate his defense. The trial court has rightly considered the material on record and appreciated the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses. There are no reasons to doubt the case of the prosecution. I have scrutinized the entire material placed on record by the prosecution before the trial court. Perused the judgment under appeal. The trial court has not erred in finding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under section 498(A) and under section 3 and 4 D.P. Act. In this appeal the counsel appearing for the Appellant/accused has not cared to argue his case made out in the appeal memo. 13. Therefore on my careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment under appeal, absolutely there are no reasons to interfere with the order of the trial court. There are no reasons to hold that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is highly erroneous or capricious. Inview of this and for the reasons assigned in the foregoing paragraphs, I have come to the conclusion that there are no reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative. 11. On going through para 11 to 13 of the judgment rendered in Crl. Appeal No.15/1999, it is seen that the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused has failed to substantiate his defence. Even in a case where accused is prosecuted for the offence under Section 498A IPC, initial burden is cast upon the prosecution and it has to be effectively discharged. Unless the prosecution is able to effectively discharge the initial burden, onus does not shift on the other side. Unfortunately, the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has opined that the accused has failed to substantiate his defence. A bald discussion is made in the judgment stating that the demand for dowry and cruelty meted by the accused to his wife has been fully substantiated from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses. But, the manner in which it is substantiated is not forth coming. This can be ascertained only after reassessing or reappreciating the entire evidence. A bald discussion is made in the judgment stating that the demand for dowry and cruelty meted by the accused to his wife has been fully substantiated from the mouth of the prosecution witnesses. But, the manner in which it is substantiated is not forth coming. This can be ascertained only after reassessing or reappreciating the entire evidence. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has further held that the contradictions elicited from the mouth of the prosecutions witnesses are minor in nature and they do not go into the root of the prosecution case. What are those contradictions elicited from the mouth of PW1,2 and 5 and how they could be considered as minor in nature is not spelt out in any manner. 12. The learned judge of the first appellate court has chosen to frame the following points for consideration as found in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment: 1) Whether the appellant/accused has proved that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is highly erroneous and capricious and deserved to be set aside? 2) What order? The grounds raised in the appeal memo on behalf of the accused have been referred to in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court ion Crl.A.15/99. Point no.1 so framed by the appellate court is an omnibus point and does not specifically refer to the important grounds raised in the appeal memo. Rule 31(a) of Order XLI, C.P.C. mandates that proper points must be formulated by the first appellate court while dealing with a civil appeal. Even in criminal cases also, appropriate points must be formulated by the first appellate court and the same will have to be based on the grounds raised in the appeal memo as well as the contentions raised before the court while advancing arguments on merits. If proper points are not formulated, there cannot be effective focus on the case put forth before the first appellate court. Even on that ground also, the impugned judgment suffers from apparent error. 13. Whenever first appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction, the entire judgment is amenable for scrutiny as a whole. When such appeal is not dismissed summarily under Section 384 Cr.P.C., the court is duty bound to dispose of the same it on merits. Even on that ground also, the impugned judgment suffers from apparent error. 13. Whenever first appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction, the entire judgment is amenable for scrutiny as a whole. When such appeal is not dismissed summarily under Section 384 Cr.P.C., the court is duty bound to dispose of the same it on merits. Even when the advocate for the appellant is absent, the appellate court is expected to reassess the evidence to dispose of the appeal. 14. On going through the judgment in para 11 to 13, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court has not dealt with the appeal, as ought to have been dealt with. The first Appellate court has dealt with the appeal in a very casual manner. In this view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the approach adopted by the first Appellate Court is incorrect and improper and hence matter needs to be remitted to the first Appellate Court to deal with the appeal in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made by this court. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER The revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The judgment passed by the first Appellate court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first Appellate court to consider the matter afresh keeping in mind the observations made by this court. In that light, the appeal of the Fast Track court, the matter be sent back to CCH58, Mayo hall Unit, Bengaluru for dealing with the appeal in accordance with law. The revision petitioner shall appear before the concerned court on 29.2.2016without fail. Send a copy of this judgment to the first Appellate Court along with the LCR to the trial court at the earliest. The Appeal shall be disposed of within three months from 29.2.2016.