IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3042 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 05, 2011 Jayanti Prakash Goenka ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Premjit S. Hundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was discharged by the trial Court, which order has been interfered by the Revisional Court. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. The Revisional Court, after considering and after application of mind, has remitted the case back to the trial Court for re-considering the evidence afresh. The apprehension of the petitioner is that there is hardly any option now left with the trial Court but to frame a charge. Any observation made by the Revisional Court while remanding the case ofcourse would be taken into consideration by the trial Court as having been made for the purpose of passing the order and not as any binding direction. The trial Court would apply its independent mind to the evidence on the basis of material collected and placed before it to see if it is a case of discharge or there is a material to frame a charge. The petitioner would be at liberty to take his remedy in case any adverse order is passed against him by the trial Court. It will not be appropriate to at this stage to interfere in the revision petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. Dismissed. December 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE