Judgment N.S. RAO, J. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to succeed. 2. Laxmi Singh petitioner had served as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in Narchasi Post Office from 1969 to 1972. On the allegation that he, during that period, had committed criminal breach of trust with respect to amounts of about Rs.3000/- after forging the passbooks of two depositors, a case was registered against him with the police. After completion of the investigation, he was chargesheeted and then tried by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. He was found guilty under section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for one year. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred an appeal. That appeal, vide impugned order dated 21.1.1984 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, was allowed and while setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court, the case was remanded with the direction to dispose of the same in the light of the observations made in the same. It is against that order of remand that the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 3. As would appear from para 6 of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it had before entering into the merits of the case, noticed that the depositors (Brahmadeo Singh and Smt. Malti Devi) had not been examined at the trial that handwriting expert has also not been examined; that in that view of the matter, the evidence led by the prosecution was not complete; that the appellant’s Advocate had pleaded that there was no legal proof that the handwriting and the signatures in the passbooks were of the appellant; that from the submission advanced by the learned Advocate, it appeared that the appellant had disowned the writings and signatures in the passbooks; that in the circumstances, it was necessary to examine the depositors and the handwriting expert, and that it was also necessary to bring on records all relevant papers having hearing on those deposits. In that background, the lower appellate court had thought it fit to remand the case to the trial court for enabling the prosecution to examine the depositors and the handwriting expert in order to make its evidence complete against the petitioner Undoubtedly, the remanding of the case in that manner was highly prejudicial to the petitioner and to force him to face re-trial. In Abinash Chandra Vrs. Bimal Krishna, the accused, a practising lawyer was prosecuted under section 409 I.P.C. for misappropriating a sum of money belonging to his client, the complainant. The prosecution case was mainly based on a latter alleged to have been written by the accused to the complainant. Inspite of the defence put forward by the accused the letter was forged one in not take steps to call for expert evidence to prove the genuineness of the handwriting of the accused. The trial court after consideration of the evidence acquitted the accused. The High Court in appeal, though not satisfied about the genuineness of the letter, set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial by another Magistrate who was directed to give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence of handwriting expert in order to establish the genuineness of the letter. The High Court took that unusual course solely on the ground that the case was one between a counsel and a client. On appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court had held that the order of re-trial passed by the High Court was entirely erroneous and had to be set aside. Though the complainant had the fullest opportunity of adducing all the evidence necessary to prove the charge, the prosecution took its chance of having a decision in its favour. In the absence of anything to show that the Magistrate had refused to give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce the necessary evidence, the High Court was not justified in ordering re-trial simply because the prosecution did not adduce all the evidence that could have been produced in support of its case. The only reason given by the High Court that the case was between a lawyer and his client for ordering re-trial was against all well established rules of criminal jurisprudence which requires that the accused should not be place on trial for the same offence more than once, except in very exceptional circumstances. Then in the SACHINDRA NATH VRS. The only reason given by the High Court that the case was between a lawyer and his client for ordering re-trial was against all well established rules of criminal jurisprudence which requires that the accused should not be place on trial for the same offence more than once, except in very exceptional circumstances. Then in the SACHINDRA NATH VRS. STATE OF BIHAR, it was ruled that the object of remand in not to enable the prosecution to fill up any lacuna that it had left at the time of the regular trial. It was upto the prosecution to have led all the evidence at the time of the trial, and if it failed to do so; it should not have been given an opportunity to lead further evidence after remand. 4. Such being the interpretation of the law on the subject, the direction of the lower appellate court to the trial Magistrate in requiring the prosecution to examine the depositors and the handwriting expert and also to place on record all the relevant papers having bearing on their deposits is bad in law. The prosecution had been given full opportunity by the trial Magistrate to lead its evidence. If still the prosecution had failed to lead satisfactory evidence for bringing home the guilt against the petitioner, it has to thank itself only. The case could not be remanded to enable the prosecution to fill up the lacuna which it had left at the trial. The observation of the lower appellate court that he had remanded the case because the accused was a public servant and the allegations against him were of embezzlement of government money, was not a valid reason to do that on the ration of ABINASH CHANDRA’S CASE (Supra). 5. For reasons stated above, the direction of the lower appellate court contained in the impugned judgment, whereby the trial magistrate was required to record fresh evidence of the prosecution of the type stated above, is hereby set aside, and while accepting this petition, it is ordered that the court (of the First Additional Sessions judge Hazaribagh) will restore the Criminal Appeal No. 274/80 at its original number and decide the same afresh on the basis of the materials already available on record of the trial Magistrate. The parties, though their learned counsel are directed to appear in the court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 1.2.1989. The parties, though their learned counsel are directed to appear in the court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on 1.2.1989. The records of the courts below are ordered to be returned forth with so as to reach there prior to that date. Application Allowed.