IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2010 MRS. LUISA FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus V. P. URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MS. TATNA S. AMONKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri S. Xete, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd August, 2010 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. The Petitioner is an accused who was convicted and sentenced by the learned J.M.F.C., Ponda under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the said conviction/sentence to the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji by his Order dated 19-7-2010 has remanded the case to the learned Magistrate because he found that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with law. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has also not examined whether the conviction against the accused was in accordance with law. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, reliance was placed on P. Mazher v. State of A.P.(2003 Cr.L.J. 3269) wherein a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that an appellate Court was at liberty to alter the findings and maintain the sentence imposed by the trial Court and also had the option with or without altering the finding to alter the nature and extent of the sentence but had no power to extend the sentence given by the trial Court. Inspite of citing the said Judgment, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has remanded the case, even without upholding the conviction. In case the sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate was not in accordance with law then it was the duty of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to have imposed an appropriate sentence in accordance with law. It appears that the learned Magistrate used the word "fine" instead of "compensation" when she directed the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2,15,000/-. In case, the punishment in default imposed was not in accordance with Section 65 of I.P.C., then it was the duty of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to have corrected the same. Considering what is stated herein above, the impugned Judgment dated 19-7-2010 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. The appeal is restored to file. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal on merits i.e. on conviction, and in case the conviction is upheld, on sentence. Both the parties to appear before the Assistant Sessions Judge on 1-9-2010 at 10.00 a.m. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.