As per case facts, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act after a cheque issued for labour supply was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Trial ... Court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence and a fine. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence, remitting the matter to the Trial Court for appropriate sentencing and fine. The Appellate Court also did not decide an application for additional evidence. The accused filed a revision before the High Court, challenging the Appellate Court's decision to remit for sentencing, its failure to decide the additional evidence application, and its incorrect assertion about the Magistrate's jurisdiction regarding fines. The question arose whether an Appellate Court can confirm a conviction but remit the matter for sentencing to the Trial Court, and whether it can dispose of an appeal without deciding an application for additional evidence, as well as the Magistrate's power to impose a fine under the NI Act. Finally, the High Court held that the Appellate Court's action of remitting for sentence after confirming conviction was impermissible. It also erred by not disposing of the application for additional evidence. Furthermore, the High Court clarified that a Magistrate has jurisdiction to impose a fine exceeding the general CrPC limit in NI Act cases, based on specific provisions within the NI Act. The revision was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Court to decide the additional evidence application and then dispose of the appeal according to law.