S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants have lodged their grievances against the judgment and order dated 1-2-2002 passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge. Kannod District Dewas in Criminal Appeal No. 99/2001 arising out of the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Kannod in Criminal Case No. 338/97 dated 11-7-2001 convicting the applicants for the offence under Section 9 Wild Life Protection Act. 1972 read with Section 51 thereof and sentencing them each to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/ - each. in default of payment thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Appellate Court by the impugned order set-aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and remanded the case back for re-examination of PW-6 Sudhakar Rao and PW-8 Ramsewak Narvaria for proving the statements of the applicants Rambux. Chimansingh. Sajansingh and Amarsingh duly recorded during the course of trial. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix in narrow compass before the Trial Court was that on receiving the information from the Informant (MUKHBIR) at Forest Depot No. 308 Beat Kiloda that the applicants had done hunting of Chinkara HEERAN (deer) in a prohibited forest area. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and the applicants were convicted by the trial Court as mentioned above against which the applicant have appealed before the lower Appellate Court. After perusing the record and hearing both the parties the lower Appellate Court remanded the case back for a limited purpose under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for re-examination of the prosecution witnesses PW-6 Sudhakarrao and PW-8 Ramsewak Narvaria for proving the statements of the applicants Rambux. Chimansingh. Sajan Singh and Amarsingh duly recorded by them and signed by these applicants. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that the Appellate Court has committed a grave error in law while remanding the case back for re-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses for proving their statements. This is nothing but an opportunity has been given to the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna in the prosecution case. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment reported in (Ukha Kol He v. The State of Maharashtra) and (Rambhau and another v. State of Maharashtra ). The learned Dy. This is nothing but an opportunity has been given to the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna in the prosecution case. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment reported in (Ukha Kol He v. The State of Maharashtra) and (Rambhau and another v. State of Maharashtra ). The learned Dy. Advocate General has submitted that by the impugned order the Appellate Court not remanded the case for de-nova trial but after invoking the provisions of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. remanded the case back for a limited purpose to the trial Court which is well within the law and no illegality irregularity or perversity has been committed. Therefore this Court should be slow in interfering with the well reasoned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. ( 4 ) HAVING considered the rival contentions of the parties. this Court is of the view that the Lower Appellate Court has not committed any error while remanding the case back for a limited purpose as mentioned above as well as in para 13 of the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court in the judgment of UKha Kolhe V/s State of Maharashtra on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants held that: If the evidence led at the trial is deficient in important respects that is not a sufficient ground for ordering retrial. If the appellate Court thinks that additional evidence is necessary in the interests of justice and for a just and proper decision of the case the appellate Court should instead of directing a retrial exercise its powers under S. 428 (1) Criminal P. C. ( 5 ) NOW in the new Code Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure is equivalent to the provisions under Section 428 (1) Cr. P. C. The same view has been taken by the recent Supreme Court Judgment in Rambabu and another v. State of Maharashtra (supra ). in paras 2 and 6. ( 6 ) IN view of the discussion as aforesaid there is no scope for interference with the impugned decision in the revision and the same is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to comply with the directions as passed by the Lower Appellate Court in the impugned judgment. Revision dismissed. .