5. Leave To Appeal : High Court vide impugned judgment had set aside the conviction and sentences of accused recorded by the Accountability court and remanded the case to the Trial court for recording judgment in accordance with the provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C after hearing the parties-Trail court had overlooked the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C and rendered the judgment which fell short of the requisite standard-Failure to specify the points for determination as required under S. 367, Cr.P.C was an omission not curable under S. 537, Cr.P.C and absence of decision on the points for determination and reasons in the judgment amounted to an illegality which had prejudiced the case of the accused-Impugned judgment was fully covered by CI. (d) of S. 423, Cr.P.C-Contention that Hugh court ought to have written the judgment itself instead of remanding the case which had in fact amounted to retrial of the accused, could not prevail because; firstly the case had been remanded for fresh hearing and judgment and not for retrial of the accused and secondly, the remand order was in line with the law laid down by Supreme Court in Sahab Khan V The State 1997 S C M R 871.