Scope of remand controls evidence-taking: a trial court cannot reopen issues beyond the remand through Section 311 CrPC.

A remanded court must confine itself to the issues specifically sent back for determination and cannot expand the inquiry through Section 311 CrPC. Where the remand was limited to evidence on the deceased's testamentary disposition and rebuttal on that point, the Trial Court could not reopen whether a cheque was issued in discharge of a legal liability, as that issue fell outside the remand. The procedural power to summon or receive evidence cannot be used to enlarge the scope of a remand. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Trial Court could allow an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to receive a document on an issue not covered by the remand order.

Analysis: The remand direction was confined to receiving evidence regarding the testamentary disposition executed by the deceased and permitting rebuttal evidence thereon, followed by a fresh decision. A remanded court must act strictly within the limits of the remand and cannot enlarge its jurisdiction by reopening matters not sent back for determination. The question whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legal liability was not part of the remand, and the Trial Court could not use Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to expand the remand scope.

Conclusion: The application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not be allowed, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A court to which a case is remanded is bound by the terms of the remand and cannot, under another procedural provision, enlarge the scope of inquiry beyond the issues specifically remanded.

---