ORDER This order may be read in continuation of order passed by this Court on 19th June, 1969. The material facts explained therein need not be repeated. The petitioner - Uttam Bala Revankar - prays for a certificate under Art. 184(1)(c) of the Constitution. Under that provision an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment or final order in a criminal proceeding of a High Court if the High Court certificates that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. The first question for consideration is whether the order dated 19th June, 1969 is a judgment or final order for the purposes of this article. Mr. Pikale, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a final order. Mr. S. Tamba, learned Government Pleader, joins issue. As will appear from the said order, the case was remanded to the learned Magistrate with directions to dispose of the complaint pending against the petitioner before him in accordance with the provisions of law. There was no decision by this Court on merits of this complaint which remains to be tried. What was decided was some procedural questions on behalf of the parties. I would regard the said order as an interlocutory order not conclusive of the principal question whether the petitioner is guilty of innocent, 3. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said order is a final order, the further question for the purposes of grant of the certificate applied for is whether the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. As will appear from the said order no difficult or substantial question of law, principle or procedure is involved which should require further consideration by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not been constituted as an ordinary Court of criminal appeal. The discretion under this constitutional provision is to be exercised judicially. In 'Rajnikant Bhandari v. State', AIR 1967 Goa 40 the scope of this article has been examined at some length in the light of the principles declared by the Supreme Court from time to time. The petitioner has a further remedy by way of special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution, which he could adopt in case he is really aggrieved. The petitioner has a further remedy by way of special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution, which he could adopt in case he is really aggrieved. The certificate applied for is not to be granted as a matter of mere formality. It is said by Mr. Pikale that the procedural matters are really complex. I do not agree with him. It may be said in passing that the question whether the complaint pending before the learned Magistrate is to be decided according to the provisions of the Portuguese Criminal Procedure Code or the Indian Criminal Procedure Code was not raised on behalf of the petitioners in the trial Court and also in the Court of Session. This question was raised by the learned Sessions Judge in revision. He decided erroneously that he had no jurisdiction to try the application for revision under S. 435 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court from time to time, I do not regard this case as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter the prayer for grant of the certificate applied for is refused. Order accordingly.