ORDER : This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant challenging the order passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, (CCH73), Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘first Appellate Court’ for short) in Crl.A.No25225/2018 dated 22.08.2019 for having setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.53556/2016 dated 02.11.2018. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent. 3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the petitioner/complainant before the court below is that he has filed a private complaint as against the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act” for short). After the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court ordering to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/and compensation of Rs.18,58,500/payable by the respondent/accused to the petitioner/complainant. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Court in CRL.A.No.25225/2018. During the pendency of appeal, both accused as well as complainant filed separate applications i.e., I.A.Nos.4 and 5 under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’ for short) for adducing additional evidence and subsequently, both the parties filed a joint memo for disposing the applications and permitting the parties to lead fresh evidence by remanding the matter to the trial Court. Based upon the memo, the first Appellate Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and also referred I.A.Nos.4 and 5 filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C to the trial Court to consider and dispose of the matter on merits, which is challenged by the petitioner/complainant under this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has contended that the very provision of Section 391 of Cr.P.C says that the application filed for leading additional evidence before the first Appellate Court. Such being the case, the first Appellate Court ought to have recorded the evidence as additional evidence before it or it could have sent back the matter to the Magistrate for recording the evidence or sending back for consideration of appeal on merits, but the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be set aside, which amounts to an acquittal. Therefore, the order challenged under revision suffers from illegality. Therefore, the order challenged under revision suffers from illegality. Hence, prays for setting aside the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused is not present before the Court. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and on perusal of the record, the only point that arises for consideration before this Court is: Whether the order under challenge suffers from legality for having setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and for remanding the matter for trial by the first Appellate Court? 8. On perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that the respondent/accused was convicted by the trial Court in C.C.No.53556/2016 dated 02.11.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court. It is also an admitted fact that both the complainant as well as accused filed I.A.Nos.4 and 5 under Section 391 of Cr.P.C for leading additional evidence and also filed a joint memo for remitting the matter to the Magistrate in order to mark fresh documents and to lead further evidence. Based upon the joint memo, the first Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In my considered opinion, the first Appellate Court ought not to have set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court even though the parties have filed a joint memo for leading additional evidence and remitting the matter back to the Magistrate for recording fresh evidence. Apart from that, I.A.Nos.4 and 5 were filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C before the first Appellate Court seeking permission to lead additional evidence. Such being the case, sending I.A.Nos.4 and 5 filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C to the Magistrate Court without passing any order on the said applications is incorrect and against the procedure under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. 9. For convenience, the definition of Section 391 of Cr.P.C., reads as follows: “391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken. For convenience, the definition of Section 391 of Cr.P.C., reads as follows: “391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken. (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks 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, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate. (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal. (3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken. (4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.” 10. On bare reading of Section 391 of Cr.P.C., it clearly goes to show that while dealing with any appeal by the Appellate Court, if additional evidence is necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate. Thereupon receipt of such evidence the first Appellate Court shall proceed to dispose of the matter on merits. Section 391 of Cr.P.C is synonymous to Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure in civil suits for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Charanjeet Gaba Vs. Section 391 of Cr.P.C is synonymous to Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure in civil suits for leading additional evidence at the appellate stage. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Charanjeet Gaba Vs. Arjun Lal Ahuja reported in Laws(DLH) 2012 3 624 wherein set aside the order passed by the first Appellate Court and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration for recording additional evidence in the manner indicated under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. I respectfully agree with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and in view of Section 391 of Cr.P.C., the first Appellate Court ought to have allowed I.A.Nos.4 and 5 filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C and the first Appellate Court also being the continuation of trial Court can record additional evidence by calling the parties before the Court and dispose of the appeal based on the additional evidence or by keeping in abeyance the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court can send the parties before the trial Court for recording additional evidence and after receipt of the evidence recorded by the trial Court and to dispose of the appeal on merits by relying upon the additional evidence. Therefore, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not correct and also the first Appellate Court has committed error in remitting back both I.A.Nos.4 and 5 to the trial Court as well as setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trail Court. Therefore, the order passed by the first Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following ORDER The criminal revision petition is allowed. The order dated 22.08.2019 passed by LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH73) in Crl.A.No25225/2018 by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.11.2018 passed by the LVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.NO.53556/2016 is hereby set aside. The first Appellate Court is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.4 and 5 filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C and also follow the procedure under Section 391 of Cr.P.C either by recording the evidence itself or sending the matter to the Magistrate Court for recording the evidence by keeping in abeyance of order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court is also directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible. The parties are directed to cooperate with the first Appellate Court for disposing of the matter as early as possible.