JUDGMENT A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant herein has challenged the Judgment and Order in Crl. A. No. 129/2009 dated 09.07.2010 setting aside the conviction of the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short) and to remit the matter to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. The facts reveal that the appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the accused before the trial Court. The appellant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent has availed a loan of Rs. 1,85,000-00 and towards repayment of the loan, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No. 556034 dated 16.09.2005 and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it returned with endorsement "insufficient funds". The appellant issued a notice and as the demand was not met by the respondent, the appellant approached the trial Court with the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. to take action against the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial Court recorded the evidence and after completion, the trial Court heard the parties and convicted the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and ordered him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,000-00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The said Order was challenged by the respondent in Crl. A. No. 129/09 vide Order dated 09.07.2010. The appellate Court has set aside the Order of conviction and remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the respondent to put-forth his defence and dispose of the case in accordance with law. The said Order has been challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondent in the trial Court and that there was no necessity to remit the matter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this appeal is not maintainable in law and the only way left open for the appellant is to file a revision against the Order of remand. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this appeal is not maintainable in law and the only way left open for the appellant is to file a revision against the Order of remand. 4. Admittedly, the Order that has been challenged in this appeal is an Order of remand setting aside the conviction and remitting the matter to the trial Court for disposal of the case in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the respondent. As could be seen from the provisions under Section 374, Cr.P.C. on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate, or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the First Class, where a conviction is ordered, an appeal is provided in the aforesaid provision. So, any person convicted on a trial is entitled to file an appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. The appellant has approached this Court under Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. Relevant para under Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. reads as under: If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court. As could be seen from the aforesaid provision, if such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon a complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court But, anyhow, the order that has been challenged in this appeal is an order of remand remitting the matter to the trial Court to dispose of the case after affording an opportunity to the respondent. The order impugned is neither an order of conviction nor acquittal and it does not fall within the purview of Section 378(4), Cr.P.C. Therefore, this appeal itself is not maintainable in law. At the most, the appellant can approach this Court by way of a revision. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant is at liberty to challenge the order of remand by filing a revision petition.