Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 26.3.2003 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) in Criminal Revision Case No. 163/2002
2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that non-applicant No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 763/98. The Trial Court after duly registering the case, tried the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) vide judgment passed by J.M.F.C. Shujalpur in Criminal Case No. 763/98 on 18.12.1998. An appeal was preferred and vide judgment passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 185/2000 on 9.7.2002 the case was remanded back to Trial Court for disposal according to law. After remand, case was tried again in compliance of the remand order and vide judgment passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shujalpur in Criminal Case No. 525/2002 (as the case was renumbered) on 19.8.2002, the applicant was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand). Out of the fine amount, Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand) were directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. In default of payment of fine, accused applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved by this order of sentence, complainant preferred revision against the above said order. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur vide his order dated 26.3.2003 passed in Criminal Revision No. 163/2002 directed that the case be remanded back to Trial Court for passing appropriate sentence. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Shujalpur, accused applicant has filed this revision petition.
3. Learned Revisional Court vide impugned order has remanded back the case to Trial Court for passing appropriate sentence. The Lower Appellate Court has not given the clear finding that sentence awarded by the Trial Court is lesser but it has made observation that the impugned sentence does not seem to be appropriate, looking to the gravity of the offence. In the light of the above observation of the Revisional Court, the Trial Court cannot freely exercise its discretion. If the Revisional Court was of the view that the sentence is not appropriate, it could have passed the appropriate sentence itself. If it decided to remand back the case, then it should not have made such observations, which amounts to put restrain on the discretion of the Court. Any direction, which fetter the Lower Courts judicial discretion in any way shall not be given.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order is not legal. Hence, it is quashed and the case is remanded back to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur to dispose it of in accordance with the law.