1. - The present revision has been filed against the judgment dated 23.5.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby the learned Appellate Judge has remanded the matter back to the trial Judge to record further evidence and then to pass judgment afresh.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case the petitioner had filed the appeal challenging his conviction and while exercising powers under Section 386 Cr.P.C., the learned appellate Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order of remand. He could either accept the appeal filed by the accused or reject the same. He has further submitted that looking to the time lapsed in the trial and appeal of the case, the direction for re-trial was absolutely unjustified. He has also submitted that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant at the trial and there was no application filed by the prosecution before the appellate Judge under Section 391, Cr.P.C. for calling additional evidence at appellate stage. As such, the direction of the appellate Judge without there being any application of the prosecution to this effect was absolutely unjustified.

3. Learned counsel f