In a recent decision in Nasib Singh V. State of Punjab and another, (2022) 2 SCC 89, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court, on the issue as to when an appellate court may direct for a retrial, summarised the law, in paragraph 33 of its judgment, as follows: “33. The principles that emerge from the decisions of this Court on retrial can be formulated as under: 33.1. The Appellate Court may direct a retrial only in ”exceptional’ circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice; 33.2. Mere lapses in the investigation are not sufficient to warrant a direction for re-trial. Only if the lapses are so grave so as to prejudice the rights of the parties, can a retrial be directed; 33.3. A determination of whether a ”shoddy’ investigation/trial has prejudiced the party, must be based on the facts of each case pursuant to a thorough reading of the evidence; 33.4. It is not sufficient if the accused/ prosecution makes a facial argument that there has been a miscarriage of justice warranting a retrial. It is incumbent on the Appellant Court directing a retrial to provide a reasoned order on the nature of the miscarriage of justice caused with reference to the evidence and investigatory process; 33.5. If a matter is directed for re-trial, the evidence and record of the previous trial is completely wiped out; and 33.6. The following are some instances, not intended to be exhaustive, of when the Court could order a retrial on the ground of miscarriage of justice : (a) The trial court has proceeded with the trial in the absence of jurisdiction; (b) The trial has been vitiated by an illegality or irregularity based on a misconception of the nature of the proceedings; and (c) The prosecutor has been disabled or prevented from adducing evidence as regards the nature of the charge, resulting in the trial being rendered a farce, sham or charade.” In view of the law noticed above, it is clear that a retrial can be directed in exceptional circumstances but not merely to enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead either on account of insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or for other reasons.