IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3000 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Kanwal Bhatia ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ritesh Bahri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Despite repeated questioning as to how the application for remand of a case for re-consideration of sentence would be maintainable, the counsel has remained evasive and has not advanced any arguments on the query. Rather he refers to Section 361 Cr.P.C. to show that the special considerations are to be kept in view while awarding the sentence. Since the counsel has not been able to show relevant provision under which such an application could be filed and maintained before the appellate court during the pendency of appeal, no case for interference in revision petition is made out. The Appellate Court has apparently failed to go into the maintainability of such a prayer while entertaining the application for remand of the case for consideration of sentence while appeal was pending. Such an application apparently could not have been maintained during the pendency of appeal. Petition is, thus, dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE