https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41478 Where a conviction was not challenged in appeal, the revisional court could confine itself to sentencing and validly remand the matter to the trial court to pass sentence according to law, preserving the accused's right to appeal against that sentence. The remand was held neither illegal nor irregular. An application under Section 482 CrPC was also not maintainable to reopen the merits of conviction when the applicant had an ordinary appellate remedy but had not pursued it; inherent jurisdiction was not to be used to bypass that remedy. The revisional order was therefore left undisturbed, and the applicant was left to pursue remedies after sentence was imposed. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:32:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41478 Where a conviction was not challenged in appeal, the revisional court could confine itself to sentencing and validly remand the matter to the trial court to pass sentence according to law, preserving the accused's right to appeal against that sentence. The remand was held neither illegal nor irregular. An application under Section 482 CrPC was also not maintainable to reopen the merits of conviction when the applicant had an ordinary appellate remedy but had not pursued it; inherent jurisdiction was not to be used to bypass that remedy. The revisional order was therefore left undisturbed, and the applicant was left to pursue remedies after sentence was imposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41478