JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the order of remand passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, in Cr. Appeal No. 12/1992. 2. The petitioners and co-accused Hari Singh were prosecuted in Cr. Case No. 114/1987 in the aforesaid Court. The charge against Hari Singh was that he falsely impersonated one Veer Singh and signed as such on a compromise petition compounding the offences with the accused and the said petition was filed in the Court, while other accused i.e. the petitioners were charged for offence under Section 419 read with Section 120-B IPC. 3. After recording evidence and statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the trial Court convicted co-accused Hari Singh for the offence under S. 205 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, while the petitioners were convicted under Section 419 IPC and sentenced to six months rigorours imprisonment vide judgment dated 7th April, 1992. On an appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, vide impugned judgment/order remanded the case to the trial Magistrate after setting aside conviction and sentence of the accused persons. While remanding the case, the learned Judge, pointed-out some infirmities in relation to non-production of some material evidence or documents by the prosecution. The trial-court was directed to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead fresh evidence. 4. The order of remand has been challenged merely on the ground that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill-up lacunae in evidence or to repair the gaps in evidence. After going through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find that this submission has merit. A perusal of the order of remand shows that the learned lower-appellate Court has found that some material evidence or documents were not produced by the prosecution which were necessary in the case. The petitioners and co-accused Hari Singh, have faced the trial for more than eight years and the remand order to fill-up the gaps in prosecution evidence is not permissible in law. The petitioners and co-accused Hari Singh, have faced the trial for more than eight years and the remand order to fill-up the gaps in prosecution evidence is not permissible in law. In Machandar v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 S.C. 792 , it has been observed by the Apex Court as under : "Except in clear cases of guilt, where the error is purely technical, the forces that are arrayed against the accused should no more be permitted in special appeal to repair the effects of their bungling than an accused should be permitted to repair gaps in his defence which he could and ought to have made good in the lower-courts. The scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for the accused or against him, whether in favour of the State or not; and one broad rule must apply in all cases." 5. Consequently, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned-order of remand passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas is set aside. The case is sent back to him to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of material available on record. The concerned Courts be informed accordingly. *******