Remand in criminal appeal upheld where defective-charge objection required trial court scrutiny under cited precedent.

The text examines whether an appellate court was justified in setting aside a conviction and sentence and remanding the prosecution for fresh disposal when the charge was alleged to be defective under a cited precedent. It states that the applicability of that precedent to the facts was for the trial court to examine, and that the appellate court committed no error in ordering remand. On that basis, no illegality or impropriety was found in the remand order, and the revision petition was described as without merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence and remanding the prosecution to the trial court for fresh disposal.

Analysis: The revision challenged the order of remand on the ground that the charge itself was defective in the light of the cited precedent. The Court held that the applicability of that precedent to the facts of the case was a for examination by the trial court. It found that the appellate court had not committed any error in remanding the matter and that no illegality or impropriety was made out.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and the revision petition was without merit.

---