ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - There are four appels before me in each of which the Appellant has been convicted u/s 395 IPC and sentenced to seven and a half years R I. by the Court of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad. 2. The evidence against each of the Appellants is that of identification by witnesses who alleged to have seen the Appellants in the course of a dacoity which was committed on 3rd of October, 1962, between 10 and 11 P.M. in village Bakerganj, police station Soraon, at the house of Sheo Babu (P.W 1) The villagers are alleged to have come to the scene of occurrence from the north and the south of the house and to have seen the dacoits on the roof of the house as well as at the time when they were coming out of the house. A F.I.R was lodged next morning at-6.15, A.M. in which seven persons were named among the persons alleged to have participated in the dacoity. After investigation by the police, the Investigating Officer decided not to prosecute the persons presumably because the case against them was unsustainable. Others, who were suspected were, however, put up for identification at an identification parade held on the 13th of November, 1962. Each of the four Appellants was said to have been identified by several witnesses at that identification parade. 3. The validity and reliability of the test identification proceedings conducted by the Magistrate, Sri M.S. Khan has been strongly assailed before me. It has been argued that the learned Magistrate has made such gross errors in the course of the test identification proceedings held in jail that no reliance whatsoever can be placed upon these proceedings. It is argued that if these identification proceedings are eliminated on the ground of irregularities committed by the, Magistrate, there is no corroboration whatsoever, of the evidence given by the, witnesses;, at the trial that the four Appellants were among the alleged dacoits. 4. The learned, Sessions Judge,examined, the evidence given, by Sri M.S. Khan (P.W. 12) and arrived at the conclusion that the Magistrate seems to have beld just one parade of the accused and to have mixed 40 under-trials with them out of whom 20 had marks and 10 had simple marks on their facts. 4. The learned, Sessions Judge,examined, the evidence given, by Sri M.S. Khan (P.W. 12) and arrived at the conclusion that the Magistrate seems to have beld just one parade of the accused and to have mixed 40 under-trials with them out of whom 20 had marks and 10 had simple marks on their facts. The learned Magistrate, however, stated in his evidence that he had held four separate parades simultaneously, "mixing" one suspect with 10 similar under trials. It is difficult to understand what the learned Magistrate meant by stating that he held four separate parades simultaneously. After all, the learned Magistrate could have only attended to one parade at a time. He could not possibly have held four parades simultaneously and attended to each of them simultaneously. 5. The conduct of identification proceedings requires attention to a number of details. The Magistrate has to make sure that at least 10 persons of not too dissimilar appearance or built or height are paraded with each suspect separately. He has to examine the marks "likely to affect identification" of the suspect and to arrive at a decision as to what marks are so distinct ve that they are "likely to affect identification" in the case of each suspect. After selecting such distinctive marks, only as are "likely to affect identification." certain precautions have to be taken which should be enterered in the fourth column separately with regard to each suspect as they must differ from individual to individual. In the present case, I find that, instead of deciding upon "distinctive marks likely to affect identification," the learned Magistrate has only attempted to give a rather detailed description of each accused in column No. 3 and he has put down there every conceivable mark he could discover on the body of the accused. In the case of each of the four Appellants, he has not only put down the hair, the beard, and the moustaches as "distinctive marks likely to affect identification," but he has also estimated the length of the hair given in each case. The learned Magistrate has also mentioned pox marks on the face of Jawahar Lal Appellant and pimple marks on the faces of Katari alias Ajodhya and also of Kallu, Appellants. On the faces of Katari and Kallu Appellants, the learned Magistrate has noted a large number of marks including apparently insignificant moles. The learned Magistrate has also mentioned pox marks on the face of Jawahar Lal Appellant and pimple marks on the faces of Katari alias Ajodhya and also of Kallu, Appellants. On the faces of Katari and Kallu Appellants, the learned Magistrate has noted a large number of marks including apparently insignificant moles. After that, the learned Magistrate did not enter the steps taken with regard to the distinctive marks rioted by him in column No. 3 in respect of each Appellant. The learned Magistrate was content to put down a note against Jawahar Lal only in column No. 4, that the distinctive marks were covered with chits of paper and that similar chits were placed on the faces of the under trials 'mixed.' He then gave the number of under trials "mixed" as 20 with smallpox marks and 10 with pimple marks. In other words, the entry against Jawahar Lal showed that there were 30 under trials "mixed'* in the parade of Jawahar Lal. But, in the footnote the Magistrate mentioned that the persons to be identified were "mixed" with 40 other under trials. This indicated gross carelessness in the conduct of the identification proceedings. The learned Magistrate, in the course of his evidence" in the court, appeared anxious to emphasize*"that he had held four separate parades, but the manner in which he has held four alleged separate parades shows that the learned Sessions Judge's finding is correct that the Magistrate had mixed 40 under trials in one parade. The learned Magistrate, on being cross-examined admitted that he had based his testimony upon the contents of the memorandum only. His testimony also shows that he has held other parades between 13th of November, 1962, and 19th of April 1963, when he gave evidence in court. He did not even remember the time at which he held the parade. It is, there-fore, difficult to find out how the learned Magistrate was able to state that he had held four separate parades or deny that the entire parade was just one parade of 40 persons. He did not even remember the time at which he held the parade. It is, there-fore, difficult to find out how the learned Magistrate was able to state that he had held four separate parades or deny that the entire parade was just one parade of 40 persons. He also stated that "the entire parade was covered upto the waist with blankets and their hands and feet were inside the cover," a glance at the footnote of the identification memo shows that, no fetters were on, and the learned Magistrate, after stating that his rule invariably was "to cover the parade" with blankets upto the waist, admitted that he only covered the participants in the parade with blankets when the suspects or the under trials had fetters on but not otherwise. If, as stated in the memorandum, the suspects had no fetters, it would follow that the participants in the parade were not covered with the blankets. But, the learned Magistrate stated that he took the precaution of covering them with the blankets in the particular parade because of the rule he invariably followed. In other words, if this was true, there must have been some person with the fetters in the parade for him to have followed that rule in this case. The statements of the Magistrate are thus contradictory. The correct position seems to be that the learned Magistrate is quite unable to remember what he did at the parade, and he appears to be, unfortunately, trying to cure the lapses he made and his forgetfulness by making assertions which appear contradictory prima facie. 6. Another extra-ordinary thing which emerges from a perusal of the identification "memo" is that, after nothing the precautions taken with regard to the distinctive marks in column No. 3 about the Appellant Jawahar Lal, the learned Magistrate left column No. 4, meant for precautions, completely blank in the case of Appellant Katari alias Ajodhya. He merely put down "ditto" there in the case of Sheo Nath Appellant. He also omitted to put down anything at all in column No. 4 against the name of Kallu Appellant. Even if the word "ditto'' in the case of Appellant Sheo Nath were to stand for the actual pasting of slips on the faces of the under trials "mixed", it is argued that they could not be the same as in the case of Jawahar Lal. Even if the word "ditto'' in the case of Appellant Sheo Nath were to stand for the actual pasting of slips on the faces of the under trials "mixed", it is argued that they could not be the same as in the case of Jawahar Lal. The complete omission of even 'ditto' in the cases of the Appellants Katari and Kallu makes the picture of the parade, emerging from a perusal of the identification "memo", very uncertain and confusing. 7. Another feature which is pointed out is that even if all the marks mentioned in column No. 3 as distinctive marks of identification are assumed to have been covered, the "memo" shows that, at least in the cases of Katari alias Ajodhya and Kallu, these marks on the faces of the two Appellants were more than 10 in number. The learned Magistrate himself admitted that he covered 15 alleged identification marks on the face of Kallu, but he added that marks close together were covered by a single chit. In column No. 4 of the identification "memo", the actual number of chits is not mentioned as, in my opinion, it ought to have been in view of the derision of this Court in Asharfi v. State (1), AIR 1961 All. 103 : 1960 A.W.R. 140) where it has been pointed out that the pasting of more than 10 slips on the face of a suspect in the course of identification proceeding falsifies the proceedings so much that it vitiates the proceedings. 8. In the above mentioned state of evidence, the contention appears to be well founded that the test identification proceedings have not been shown to be sufficiently regular to be considered reliable. Therefore, they cannot serve the purpose of corroborating the evidence of identification given by the witnesses in court. It is true that the manner in which any irregularities affected the identification by witnesses in jail could have been brought out by cross-examining the witnesses who actually participated in those proceedings. But, where proceedings are actually proved from the statement of Magistrate who conducted the proceedings, to be so irregular and uncertain as in this case, no presumption of their regularity can arise or save proceedings from becoming totally unreliable. The defects are so gross as to rob the test parade of any value as corroborative evidence. But, where proceedings are actually proved from the statement of Magistrate who conducted the proceedings, to be so irregular and uncertain as in this case, no presumption of their regularity can arise or save proceedings from becoming totally unreliable. The defects are so gross as to rob the test parade of any value as corroborative evidence. The test parade, if successful in spite of the deflects proved, would indicate that the parade was really a farce and that correct identification took place because, as the Appellants alleged, the suspects were actually shown to the identifying witnesses. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has assumed that the proceedings were not so irregular as to affect the value of the test parade because of the results, presumed to be truthful, of the parade, and he held that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the proceedings. It is fundamentally wrong to falsify identification proceedings by pasting excessive number of slips or concealing parts of the bodies of the participants to such an extent that no honest or truthful identification can possibly take place. Concealment of the marks or parts of the bodies of the suspects and of other participants in the identification parades ought to take place only in those exceptional cases where a feature in the physiognomy of the suspect is so prominent that it could have been noticed in the course of the dacoity itself, and, even then, it should not be covered up if it has been mentioned by witnesses in the descriptions of the dacoits which are unfortunately, rarely attempted to be obtained during investigation. In those rases where the witnesses not only can but have actually described a particular distinguishing feature of a dacoit, such as bushy eve brows, attempts should be made to procure other participants with a similar feature for the test parade instead of trying to conceal or remove the feature or mark itself which could enable correct and truthful identification to take place. Marks "likely to affect identification,'' to be mentioned in column 3 of the identification memo, are not, in my opinion, to be equated with "marks which may help dishonest indemnification by giving hints." The investigating agency ought to be presumed to be honest unless and until the contrary is disclosed by the evidence in a case. 10. Marks "likely to affect identification,'' to be mentioned in column 3 of the identification memo, are not, in my opinion, to be equated with "marks which may help dishonest indemnification by giving hints." The investigating agency ought to be presumed to be honest unless and until the contrary is disclosed by the evidence in a case. 10. Other questions, such as opportunity to identify and the light in which and the places from which the dacoits are alleged to have been seen by various witnesses were also argued, but these need not be examined by me as the evidence of alleged identification uncorroborated by reliable test identification proceedings, is not a safe basis for conviction. 11. In the result, I allow these appeals and set aside the convictions and sentences of the four Appellants. Except Jawahar Lal,' who has filed his appeal from jail, the other three Appellants are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled. The Appellant Jawahar Lal will be released forthwith unless wanted in some other connection.