JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition which has been filed by accused Sohan Lal it has been argued that if there is a glaring defect in the process of examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C., then the accused should have been acquitted by the First Appellate Court and the matter should not have been remanded by the First Appellate Court. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that if there is apparent irregularity in t the process of examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. then in every such case, the accused cannot be acquitted by the First Appellate Court and the better course for the First Appellate Court is to remand the matter for observance of formalities of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then pass a fresh judgment as per law. 2. I have perused the record of the lower Court in the light of the aforesaid arguments advanted by both the sides. I have perused the judgment dated 29.7.2005 of the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh passed in Criminal Regular Case No. 75/2005. 3. This was a case under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. The trial Court had convicted the accused Sohan Lal under Sections 279, 337 and 304 I.P.C. and while convicting the accused, the trial Court has relied upon the post-mortem report and the injury report also which were there in the file which were duly exhibited also. 4. Before the First Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2008 (Sohan Lal v. State) , it was argued by the accused-appellant that formalities of Section 313 Cr.P.C., were not duly observed and no question was asked from him regarding post-mortem report or the injury report which was exhibited in the case so he wanted a judgment of acquittal in his favour. The First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that while asking questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., questions should have been framed regarding all the exhibits which the prosecution wants to rely upon against the accused. The First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that while asking questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., questions should have been framed regarding all the exhibits which the prosecution wants to rely upon against the accused. Since, in the case no question was asked by the trial Court regarding the post-mortem report and injury report, so the First Appellate Court thought it fit to remand the case to the trial Court to observe formalities of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then the trial Court was also directed to pass a fresh judgment. 5. The accused-petitioner in this criminal revision has relied upon the following ruling: 6. Sagarmal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 113 , wherein while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Muthiah v. State, (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 245 , it was held that the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the statutory powers of the Investigating Agency. The aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is not convicted as to how the judgment of the First Appellate Court can be called illegal or against the facts or against the law. 7. In the circumstance of the case, there is no substance in the revision petition filed by accused-Sohan Lal in the matter and hence, his revision petition deserves dismissal at the admission stage only which is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******