ORDER : Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. By way of this revision, the petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.1.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2017 whereby the appellate court, while deciding the petitioner's appeal against conviction, set aside the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 882/2003 (321/98), convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and while remanding the matter, directed the trial Court to summon and examine a few more witnesses and then to decide the case afresh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the provisions of Section 386 (b) (I) Cr.P.C. urged that the appellate Court does not have jurisdiction to make partial remand of a case while considering an appeal arising from a judgment of conviction. He submits that if at all the appellate Court was of the view that the trial was vitiated on account of some irregularity or otherwise, it could have set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court in totality and could have directed a re-trial but as per him, a direction to examine a few witnesses and then to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, could not have been given by the appellate Court in view of the clear language of Section 386 (b) (I) Cr.P.C. He thus, submits that the judgment under challenge deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time, he candidly concedes that the appellate Court could have exercised the powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to examine more witnesses at the appellate stage if it was felt necessary to exercise that power. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008 (2) RCC p. 676. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Section 386 (b) (i) Cr.P.C. reads as under :- "386 (b) In an appeal from a conviction - (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) ... ... ... (iii) ... ... ..." 7. As per the clear language of Section 386 (b) (i) Cr.P.C., while considering an appeal from conviction, the appellate Court can reverse the finding and sentence passed by the trial Court and acquit or discharge the accused "or order him to be re-tried from the Court of a competent jurisdiction". An order of retrial would entail a full fledged denovo trial of the accused. The appellate Court could not have remanded the matter partially with a simple direction to examine a few witnesses and then to pass a fresh order. If at all the appellate Court was of the view that few of the witnesses whose testimony was essential for a fair and just decision of the case should have been examined at the trial, then, the appellate Court was required to exercise the powers under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for recording additional evidence and then should have decided the appeal as per law. 8. In the result, the instant revision petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2017 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for fresh decision of the appeal. The appellate Court is directed to reconsider the matter and after keeping in view the fact that the alleged offence pertain to the year 1998, it shall reexamine as to whether or not the testimony of the witnesses who were directed to be examined while passing the judgment dated 21.01.2017 is essential for the just decision of the case and to pass a fresh order in the matter as per law.