JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel Shri Thakur for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor.While deciding the appeal, learned Sessions Judge found that the whole evidence which was produced by the prosecution against the accused-petitioner was not put in the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. and the accused-petitioner did not have opportunity to explain the whole circumstance. In Para No. 4 of the judgment. the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the Magistrate examined witnesses on behalf of the prosecution but the evidence of only three witnesses was put to the accused-petitioner in to order to obtain his explanation. Documentary evidence was also not put to the accused-petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 311 Cr.PC. He, therefore, set aside the order of conviction and remanded the case to the learned Magistrate to record the statement of the accused under Section 313 again with direction that he should be given further opportunity to produce defence, if he so likes and then to decide the matter afresh. 2. This revision petition has been directed against the order of remand. Shri Thakur submitted that lacuna left by the Court cannot be filled at this belated stage after a lapse of more than 8 years. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 4. It is found that the learned Magistrate did not properly examine the . accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.PC. and did not put the whole evidence against him. Accused-petitioner is going to be benefited as he is being given another opportunity to explain the circumstances as well as to is produce his defence, if he so likes. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that it is filling up of lacuna left by the learned Magistrate. Hence, there is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. Learned Magistrate is directed to decide it expeditiously.Petition dismissed. *******