Short Note : The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows: Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 9 were put up for trial for offences punishable under sections 148, 452, 323 and 324 read with section 149 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agar, in Cr. C. No. 650 of 1973. The trial Court, by its judgment dated 28th November 1975, convicted the non-applicants under sections 148 and 452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. They were also convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by their conviction, these non-applicants filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Shajapur. That appeal was registered as Cr. A. No. 181 of 1975. It was urged before the learned Sessions Judge on behalf of the appellants that another case viz. Cr. C. No. 183 of 1975, arising out of the same incident as gave rise to Cr. C. No. 650 of 1973 in which the appellants were convicted was instituted against the present petitioner and, therefore, the trial Court should have decided by a single judgment both the criminal cases, namely, Cr. C. Nos. 650 of 1973 and 183 of 1975. This contention was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge and, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, the case was remanded for retrial. The trial Court was directed to try Cr. C. No. 650 of 1973 afresh along with Cr. C. No. 193 of 1975. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Neither the lower appellate Court has given any reason nor learned counsel for non-applicants No. 1 to 9 was able to point out any valid reason for holding that the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Cr. C. No. 650 of 1973 was illegal or without jurisdiction. Retrial could not be ordered on the ground that another case arising out of the incident which gave rise to the institution of Cr. C. No. 650 of 1973 was pending for trial. It is elementary that each case would be required to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in that case. Retrial could not be ordered on the ground that another case arising out of the incident which gave rise to the institution of Cr. C. No. 650 of 1973 was pending for trial. It is elementary that each case would be required to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in that case. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, not justified in setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and in remanding the case for retrial. The order passed by the lower appellate Court is manifestly illegal and deserves to be set aside. Revision allowed.