SHARIF KHA Vs. GAJANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") is preferred against the order dated 7 6 2013 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 390/ 11 whereby allowed an application under Section 391 of the Code submitted by the petitioner herein/appellant and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for recording the additional evidence.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent herein/complainant, the Trial Court had taken cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act") against the petitioner herein/accused and the case was proceeded. Vide the judgment dated 2 9 2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 914/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Guna, convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to suffer 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,50,000/ . Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner herein/accused preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was numbered as Cri. Appeal No. 390/ 2011. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 391 of the Code was preferred by the petitioner herein for taking two documents as additional evidence. The application was allowed and by keeping the appeal pending for decision, by the impugned order the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for recording the additional evidence of the parties by passing the following order : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_320_MPHT4_2013.jpg</IMG>

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside as the Appellate Court remanded the matter only for a limited purpose. Looking to the nature of the documents, the Appellate Court should have remanded the whole matter for deciding it afresh after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the petitioner herein/accused. According to him, the learned Appellate Court erred in law by remanding the matter for a limited purpose. Learned Counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remand the whole matter to the Trial Court for fresh decision. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of Shobharam and others Vs. State of M.P., 2010 Cri.LR (MP) 647.