ORDER

The revision petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 11.01.2016 passed in criminal appeal No.130/2016 by the Court of the 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan District (Sit at Channarayapatna) (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court' for short.) as the Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.350/2013 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Channarayapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) and remitted the matter to the Trial Court from the stage of framing charge.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 17.08.2008 at about 2.00 p.m., the CW.1 was cultivating the property bearing Survey.No.22/1 of Yalenahalli village, by that time, the accused persons grazing cattle in the land of CW.1. On questioning the same, the accused persons abused him in filthy language, caught hold and assaulted by making use of handle of spade ('UÀÄzÀÝ° PÁªÀÅ') and dragged by holding the hair and also threatened with dire consequences. Thus, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 341,323,324,326,504 and 506 read with Section

34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused, the case was registered in C.C.No.350/2013. In pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail. Charge framed and read over and explained to the Accused. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, 7 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 7, 7 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P7 and 2 material objects were marked as M.O.s.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused has totally denied the incriminating evidence found against him but he has not chose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

6. On hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 341,323,324,326,504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the appeal before Appellate Court in criminal appeal No.130/2016 and the same came to be allowed on 11.01.2016 and the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.350/2013 by the Trial Court was set aside and the case was remitted to the Trial Court with a direction for fresh disposal in accordance with law and from the stage of framing charge. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Appellate Court has erred in expanding the scope of enquiry beyond the grounds raised by the prosecution in its appeal memo. The finding given by the Appellate Court is extraneous and neither canvassed by either of the parties. Under such circumstances, remanding the matter on the ground that the charges are not properly framed is erroneous understanding of law and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be interfered with. Further, the Appellate Court has erred in holding that the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not proper which is neither challenged by the prosecution nor by the accused. Under such circumstances, remanding on that ground is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. The Appellate Court has also find the fault with the Trial Judge as to format of judgment even though the such grounds are not raised by the prosecution is of violation of Section 374 of Cr.P.C. The Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and ignored the duty of the Appellate Court