Appellate criminal remand powers are limited: routine retrial is impermissible when prosecution is legally untenable.

In an appeal from conviction, an appellate court may reverse the finding and sentence, acquit or discharge the accused, or order a retrial, but it cannot direct a mere fresh decision or routine remand. Retrial is justified only where the trial is illegal, irregular, or otherwise defective. Where the court itself found that the Income-tax Act offences were not in force on the alleged dates, the prosecution was legally untenable and the appeal should have been decided on merits rather than sent back mechanically. Long pendency also weighed against remand. The remand order was therefore held unlawful, quashed, and the appeal restored for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court could remand the criminal case for a fresh decision or retrial after holding that the charged offences under the Income-tax Act were not in existence on the date of the alleged acts, and whether such remand was permissible under the appellate powers in criminal appeal.

Analysis: The revision challenged the appellate court's direction setting aside the conviction and sending the matter back for a fresh decision. The statutory scheme of Section 386(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits an appellate court, in an appeal from conviction, to reverse the finding and sentence, acquit or discharge the accused, or order a retrial. A mere direction to rewrite or re-record a judgment is not contemplated. Retrial is also not to be ordered mechanically and is normally justified only where the trial is illegal, irregular, or otherwise defective. Here, the appellate court itself had found that the offences under Sections 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were inserted only with effect from 1 October 1975 and, therefore, the prosecution on the alleged dates was legally unsustainable. In that situation, the appellate court ought to have decided the appeal on merits, including the possibility of acquittal, rather than ordering an unnecessary remand. The long pendency of the matter also weighed against sending the case back for another round of proceedings.

Conclusion: The remand order was unlawful and liable to be set aside; the appellate court was directed to re-admit the appeal and decide it in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order of remand was quashed, and the matter was restored to the appellate court for fresh adjudication on the merits of the criminal appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal from conviction, an appellate court cannot direct a mere fresh decision or routine remand; it may order retrial only where the trial is itself illegal, irregular, or otherwise defective, and where the prosecution is legally untenable the appeal must be decided on merits rather than sent back mechanically.

---