The State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary (Home), filed a Government Appeal (No. 92 of 2026) before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) against an order of acquittal in favour of Sharad Rastogi and four others. During the hearing, the learned Additional Government Advocates raised a preliminary objection that the Court was required to mandatorily summon the trial court records before deciding the appeal, relying on Section 385(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which uses the word 'shall'. The Court examined Sections 378, 382, 383, 384, and 385 of the Cr.P.C. and drew a distinction between Section 384 (summary dismissal), which gives the appellate court a discretion to call for records, and Section 385 (procedure for appeals not dismissed summarily), which mandatorily requires the appellate court to send for the records. The Court noted that once leave to appeal against acquittal is granted under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., and the appeal is not dismissed summarily, Section 385(2) mandates summoning of the records. The judgment text as provided ends mid-analysis while discussing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475.