ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This is an application u/s 561A Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the identification proceedings of the Applicant may be held at Meerut Jail where he is confined at present. 2. The Petitioner is being prosecuted for offences u/s 302 IPC and alied sections, in respect of an occurrence which took place in village Chatia, PS Ujhiani, Distt. Budaun on 28-6-64. 3. The Petitioner surrendered in October 1964 in a court at Meerut. The Petitioner made an application in the Court of the A.D.M. Judicial Budaun, praying that the identification proceedings may be held in Meerut Jail and that the Petitioner may not be transferred to Budaun as he apprehends that he would be shown to the identifying witnesses during the course of transit from Meerut to Budaun. The learned A.D.M. rejected this prayer. The Petitioner then moved the learned Sessions Judge, but without success. 4. The learned A.D.M. in his order dated 11-11-64 held that the Court cannot direct the investigation to be made in a particular manner and that identification is a part of investigation proceedings. 5. The learned Govt. Advocate relying upon a single Judge authority of this Court reported in 1951 All. 475 which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Lajja Ram Vs. The State, AIR 1955 All 671 , has urged that the accused has no right to demand an identification. This part of the submission is undoubtedly supported by these authorities. 6. The learned Govt. Advocate urged that if an accused person has no right to demand identification, he has much less a right to demand that the identification may be held at a particular place. The submission has force. Sri B.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has not been able to show me any authority or good reasons to doubt the soundness of these propositions. The Petitioner, in my opinion, has no right to demand that his identification may be held at Meerut. 7. The main apprehension of the Petitioner is that he may be shown to the identifying witnesses in the course of transit from Meerut to Budaun. 8. The Petitioner had ample opportunity to safeguard against this eventuality. The offence is alleged to have been committed in June 1964; the Petitioner surrendered in October 1964. He surrendered at Meerut. 7. The main apprehension of the Petitioner is that he may be shown to the identifying witnesses in the course of transit from Meerut to Budaun. 8. The Petitioner had ample opportunity to safeguard against this eventuality. The offence is alleged to have been committed in June 1964; the Petitioner surrendered in October 1964. He surrendered at Meerut. He could have surrendered at Budaun so as to avoid being transferred from Meerut to Budaun for the purpose of identification. Be that as it may, I am not satisfied that this is a case in which the interests of justice demand that this Court should interfere u/s 561A Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The application is dismissed.