The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt based on material and evidence on record, and the opportunity for both sides to produce and refer to documents, and put forward their cases to assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

The present Criminal Revision Applications have been filed by the Petitioners challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2009 read with Criminal Revision Application No.60 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011 on the grounds sated in the memo of Revision Application.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. D.M. Thakkar appearing for the Petitioners- Original Accused has submitted that the Court below has relied upon the documents, which is not accepted. He submitted that the documents which have been referred, are not even produced by the prosecution, and therefore, such an order remanding the matter back is bad and it would amount to permitting the Respondent No.2 to fill up the lacuna. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code is not proved as the necessary ingredients cannot be said to have been established. He referred to the provisions of Section 406 and submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt based on material and evidence on record. He submitted that if the prosecution has not relied up on some document then such document cannot be considered. He referred to the impugned judgment and order to emphasise that on the one hand the Court below has observed that it agrees with the conclusion and the finding arrived at by the Trial Court and on the other hand he has remanded the matter back observing that as there is no clarity with regard to some aspect, it is remanded back. He submitted that even when the search was made nothing was found from the bank locker or from the house of the accused with regard to stridhan, which is claimed by the Respondent No.2. He submitted that the document which has been referred as Exh.69, whether it is genuine or not or whether it is original, is not proved and established by evidence. He therefore submitted that it would amount to denovo trial, and if such an order is sustained, the Petitioners are required to face the denovo trial again, which would cause prejudice. He there fore submitted that if there was no material evidence establishing the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the consequences would follow and such an order for remand of the matter for further evidence would amount to allowing the other side to fill up the lacuna. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar therefore submitted that the present Revision Applications maybe allowed.

3. Respondent No.2 who appears as party in person has referred to the papers along with the written submissions at length and submitted that the ornaments and other things, which were suffered at the time of marriage as stridhan has not been returned to her. She submitted that the list was prepared but it has not been received by them and she has not signed acknowledgement of such stridhan received by her. She submitted that it was not produced by the prosecution or the defence when her evidence was recorded. She submitted that the I.O. has failed to make necessary investigation and benefit should not be given to the Petitioners - Original accused. Respondent No.2 has also stated that in further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC mere denial is recorded and no explanation is offered by the Accused. She submitted that various orders have been passed by the different benches, which would reflect the attitude and the conduct of the Petitioners - Original accused. Therefore, she has submitted that her husband has been residing abroad and she has been harassed, for which, she has lodged the aforesaid complaint and other cases. She pointedly referred to Exh. 68 and submitted that the document of dissolution/fargati is not genuine. She submitted that the stamp paper, which was given by the husband for the purpose of her visa has been misused.

4. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Mr. D.M. Thakkar for the Petitioners submitted that if the present order is allowed to sustain, it woul