- (1.) A. S. Tripathi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE trial Court had convicted the revisionist and two others and sentenced to undergo noe year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each under Section 420, I. P. C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I, for one month. Further it was directed that out of the deposited by the revisionist and two others a sum of Rs. 1,200 shall be paid to the complainant. One of the co-accused, Harishanver, has absconded. The revisionist filed an appeal before the Session Judge, Lalitpur and the learned Sessions Judge found that the procedure adopted by the trial Court was against the law and directed the trial Magistrate by an order of remand that the trial of the case shall proceed according to law a fresh and after recording evidence all the accused be tried together and then appropriate order be passed. This amounts to setting aside the conviction of the revisionist. The revisionist apprehend harrassment by prolonging the trial for indefinite period and also in view of the fact that one of the co-accused is absconding. I find that the appellate Court was fully justified in remanding the case for t'resh trial as the learned Magistrate had not adopted tegor proceedure and the sentence awarded to the revisionist was not justified on record. There fore, the appellate Court's order cannot be interferred within this revision.
(3.) AS such, the revision is not maintainable and is dismissed. However, it is directed that the trial Magistrate shall expedite the trial as far as possible and decide the care preferably within six months. Revision dismissed. .;