ORDER B.D. Gupta, J. - The Applicant Balbir Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304A, IPC and sentenced to nine months' RI. After hearing learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the State I have come to the conclusion that this revision must be allowed and the Applicant must be acquitted. 2. There is no controversy that on the early afternoon of 12-2-1967 one Bhagwan Das died as a result of truck No. 606 UPY striking a cycle which was being driven by one Sewa Singh On the Kotdwar Najibabad road. The case of the prosecution which has been accepted by the courts below is that whilst Sewa Singh was driving the cycle the deceased Bhagwan Dass was sitting on its carrier. As a result of the impact of the truck with the cycle they were both thrown out and the injury received by Bhagwan Dass was so serious that hedied on the spot. The case of the prosecution that at the time of the aforesaid accident the truck was being driven by the Applicant Balbir Singh rested on the evidence furnished as a result of an identification proceeding conducted in the District Jail at Bijnor on 17-4-67 in the course of which the Applicant was identified by two witnesses, Balwant Singh (PW 4) and Sampuran Singa (PW 5) whose testimony has been accepted by the courts below. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has urged that the conviction of the Applicant merely on the aforesaid identification evidence is improper and reliance in support of this contention has been placed by learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in Komal Gope and Beni Gope v. State of Bihar Cr. A. No. 45 of 1965 Dl-23-11-1967. It appears that the aforesaid contention must be given effect to. 3. The prosecution case was that after the accident the driver of the truck stopped the truck, got down for a while and on realising that one of the persons struck by the truck had received extremely serious injuries the again drove away the truck whereafter the witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence informed one Latkan Ram (PW 2), a relative of the deceased Bhagwan Dass living close by about the mishap. Latkan Ram reached the spot and having found Bhagwan Dass dead proceeded to the police station and lodged a report in the afternoon. Latkan Ram reached the spot and having found Bhagwan Dass dead proceeded to the police station and lodged a report in the afternoon. In the report, the number of the truck which had caused the accident was given as 606 UPY. The next day i.e. on 13-2-1967 Station Officer Mehkar Singh found a truck bearing the aforesaid number standing in the Police Lines, Bijnor. The truck had come there in connection with election duties and at that time the Applicant was the driver of the truck. The Applicant was arrested forthwith, his face was covered and he was sent to jail in the custody of a constable and was lodged in the District Jail at Bijnor the same day. It appears that on 25-2-1967 an application was moved on behalf of the Applicant praying for bail being granted to him. I report from the Assistant Public Prosecutor was called for by the Magistrate concerned and the endorsement on the back of that report discloses that the report of the Assistant Public Prosecutor was that though the offence was bailable identification proceedings had still to be conducted in regard to the Applicant. Notwithstanding the aforesaid report the learned Magistrate, by an order passed the same day, granted the prayer for bail with the result that the Applicant was enlarged on bail shortly thereafter and remained enlarged until 17-4-1967 on which date identification proceedings were conducted in the District Jail in Bijnor. Nothing on the record has been pointed out which might indicate that the Applicant gave an undertaking that during the period of his being at large on bail he would take care to keep himself away or protect himself against being shown to witnesses who might be set up to identify him. In the circumstances stated above the contention of learned Counsel for the Applicant has been that the evidence furnished by the identification of the Applicant by Balwant Singh and Sampuran Singh in the District Jail, Bijnor on 17-4-1967 is rendered valueless. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel on the decision of Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and Others Vs. The State, AIR 1956 All 122 . 4. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel on the decision of Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and Others Vs. The State, AIR 1956 All 122 . 4. It may be stated here that the Applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that he had brought the truck in question from Lucknow to Dhampur on 12-2-1967, that from Dhampur one Sardar Dayal Singh had taken the truck, that he was not driving the truck at the time the accident took place and that he (the Applicant) stayed at Dhampur. In the light of the aforesaid defence the crucial question which arose for consideration was as to whether, at the time of the accident on the Kotdwar Najibabad road, the Applicant was, driving truck No. UPY 606 and the answer to this question depended on the value to be attached to the evidence furnished by the two witnesses, namely, Balwant Singh, (PW 4) and Sampuran Singh, (PW 5) who identified the Applicant in the course of the identification proceedings in the District Jail, Bijnor. 5. Whilst placing reliance on the dicta of Roy, J. in the course of the decision recorded by him in the case of Ganga Singh and others (supra) learned Counsel for the Applicant with commendable fairness stated that two subsequent Division Benches of this Court had dealt with a similar question on subsequent occasions and had recorded opinion contrary to the dicta laid down by Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and others (supra). Reference may be made to the decision of Beg and Bhargava, JJ. in Mulu Singh v. State ILR 1959 (1) 583 and the decision of Oak and B. Dayal, JJ. in State v. Kulwant Singh 1959 AWR 410. The case of Mulu Singh v. State decided by Beg and Bhargava, JJ. was a criminal revision which had originally come up before a learned single Judge who referred the matter to a larger Bench in view of the dicta recorded by Roy, J., in the case of Ganga Singh and Ors. v. The State (supra). It does not appear necessary to go into details. Suffice it to say that the Division Bench, after citing the dicta laid down by Roy, J., observed that they were unable to agree with those dicta. Similarly in the case of State v. Kulwant Singh (supra) decided by Oak and B. Dayal, JJ. v. The State (supra). It does not appear necessary to go into details. Suffice it to say that the Division Bench, after citing the dicta laid down by Roy, J., observed that they were unable to agree with those dicta. Similarly in the case of State v. Kulwant Singh (supra) decided by Oak and B. Dayal, JJ. the dicta of Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and Ors. v. The State (supra) came up left consideration. The learned Judges observed that they were unable to agree with the observations of Roy, J. in Ganga Singh's case. A perusal of the judgment recorded by the Supreme Court on 23-11-1967 (A certified copy where of has been placed on record) in Komal Gope and Beni Gope v. The State of Bihar Cr. A. No. 45 of 1965, however, makes out that the highest Court in the land approved the dicta recorded by Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and others (supra). What had happened in the case before the Supreme Court was that after the accused persons in the case giving rise to the appeal before the Supreme Court had surrendered they were taken into police custody and they remained in police custody till 30-9-1961. At the time of granting remand the Magistrate had clearly indicated that the test identification parade should be held before the 30th of September but that had not been done and the Sub Inspector, asked for further time which the learned Magistrate refused to grant. The learned Magistrate had told the Sub-Inspector that the test identification parade should be held that very day but no effort was made to hold the test identification parade that day and the next day the learned Magistrate released the accused on bail. The first of the two test identification parades was, thereafter, held on 30-10-1961 and the main question that arose for consideration by the Court was in regard to the value to be attached to the result of the identification proceedings. The first of the two test identification parades was, thereafter, held on 30-10-1961 and the main question that arose for consideration by the Court was in regard to the value to be attached to the result of the identification proceedings. The learned judges, after observing that it was not necessary to state as Jo whether the Magistrate was right in releasing the accused or not at that stage without an identification parade having been held, proceeded to refer to the fact that the accused were free till 30-10-1961 and stated that, it stood to reason that there must have been opportunities for the complainant and his father to have seen the accused, if they wished to do so. They also observed that the chance that they may have been observed in the meantime was not ruled out and that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused and not to the prosecution. The learned Judges, after referring to the fact that the High Court had observed that the accused must have hidden themselves so as to avoid any possible identification, stated with regard to the above observation of the High Court that it was a mere surmise and rather gave benefit of doubt to the prosecution and was not permissible. Thereafter reference was made by the learned Judges to the criticism recorded by Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and Ors. v. The State (supra) in regard to the release on bail of a suspect before an identification parade was held and the observation recorded by the Supreme Court was as follows: We approve of the statement on that point and we share with the learned Judge the doubt which he raised in that case about the value of such identification. Nothing peculiar in the present case has been pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for the State which may detract from the applicability of the criticism recorded by Roy, J. in the case of Ganga Singh and Ors. v. The State (supra) and in the circumstances keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the cast of Komal Gope and Beni Gope v. The State of Bihar Cr. A. No. 45 of 1965 I find it impossible to uphold the conviction of the Applicant. v. The State (supra) and in the circumstances keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the cast of Komal Gope and Beni Gope v. The State of Bihar Cr. A. No. 45 of 1965 I find it impossible to uphold the conviction of the Applicant. It is a matter of regret that inspite of the fact that the attention of the Magistrate concerned was drawn by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the fact that identification proceedings had not till then been conducted, the Magistrate nevertheless granted hail in the Applicant. That circumstances could not, however, detract from the effect following the order granting bail, on the value to be attached to the identification of the Applicant by the witness. The evidence of the identification became extremely doubtful and the conviction of the Applicant on such evidence must be held to be improper. 6. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The conviction of the Applicant for the offence punishable u/s 304A, IPC as also the sentence awarded thereunder, are set aside and the Applicant is acquitted. The Applicant is, on bail. He need not surrender his bail bonds are discharged.