CHETAN SONI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has filed this revision being aggrieved of the judgment dtd. 19/7/2023 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Agar District Shajapur, in Criminal Appeal No.414/2016 whereby learned appellate Court has set aside the judgment dtd. 4/12/2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, in RCT No.991/2014 and remitted the case back to the trial Court for re-examining the accused under Sec. 313 and to pass a reasoned and cogent order.

(2.) In order to decide this criminal revision, brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Agar, District Shajapur and after considering the evidence available on record he was convicted for offence under Sec. 304(A) of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default stipulations. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before First Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Shajapur, wherein learned Appellate Court in compliance of law laid down by this Court in the Case of Sunil vs. State of M.P. reported in 2023 (1) MPLC 356 or 2023 Lawsuit (MP)68 remanded the matter to the trial Court for re-examining the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C and to pass a reasoned and cogent order after affording the opportunity of defence evidence. Being dissatisfied by the impugned order, the petitioner has knocked the portal of this Court by filing this revision petition submitting that the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court is neither legal nor proper.

(3.) The petitioner in his revision memo and arguments submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned appellant Court is against the fact and also against the settled principle of law. It is submitted that first and foremost, it is visualized from the bare perusal of the impugned judgment that learned appellate Court has remitted back the matter for the purpose of filling up the loop holes in the prosecution case, which is wrong and illegal, therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned appellate Court has misinterpreted the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sunil vs. State of M.P., vide order dtd. 8/2/2023 passed in Cr.A. No.859/2010. It is also submitted that in case, if the incriminating piece of evidence is available against accused and opportunity to explain that evidence has not been afforded to the accused, then on that basis conviction cannot be carried out.