JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an appeal by Ratan Singh, who has been convicted u/s 396, IPC and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life for committing dacoity in the house of Shyam Swarup on Gaushala Road, Mohalla Jalandari, P.S. Kotwali, Budaun. The conviction is based upon the evidence of identification. The Appellant was throughout identified by two witnesses, viz. Anand Swarup (PW 2) and Rudarkar (PW 6). 2. The Appellant has pleaded not guilty and alleged that his photograph was taken and he was shown to witnesses at Police Station Budaun and also at Delhi. 3. Ordinarily, an accused is not convicted of an offence unless there are at least two goad identifications against him. In the instant case, only two witnesses identified him and, therefore, it can be said that there exists minimum evidence against him. In case the circumstances of the case cast any doubt on the acceptance of the evidence of identification the minimum evidence becomes weaker and the accused would deserve acquittal. 4. Ratan Singh was arrested in Delhi on 19-8-68 at about 6 P.M. in the huts in Prem Nagar and was admitted in the GRP Delhi at 8 55 P.M. The arrest was made by Sri Q.H. Khan, Inspector Incharge, P.S. Kotwali, Budaun. He was produced before the ADM (J), Delhi, who on an objection raised by the accused passed an order that he shall be put up for identification in both the cases including the present one in Tihar Jail. This order was in the knowledge of Sri Q.H. Khan, Inspector. From his deposition it appears that even then an application was made to the ADM (J) Budaun for the transfer of the accused from Delhi jail to Budaun Jail. This application was allowed and the accused was transferred to Budaun jail in complete disregard of the order of the ADM (J), Delhi. The explanation furnished by the Inspector is that lady witnesses were also to appear in the test identification parade meaning thereby that it was inconvenient for ladies to go to Delhi for the purpose. He admitted that in the present case no lady was to appear in the test identification parade. Consequently, there was no 'justification for not complying with the order of the ADM (J), Delhi, in so far the present crime is concerned. 5. He admitted that in the present case no lady was to appear in the test identification parade. Consequently, there was no 'justification for not complying with the order of the ADM (J), Delhi, in so far the present crime is concerned. 5. Another factor of importance is that according to Babu Singh, Head Constable, the accused was handed over to him in his custody from Tihar Jail at 10.30 or 10.45 A.M. He could have reached Delhi Railway Station within an hour or so, say, latest by 1 P.M. Having reached the Railway Station he could leave for Budaun via Hathras by one of the afternoon or evening trains, thus arriving at Budaun at about 4 A.M. in the morning. Even if he wanted to travel via Bareilly he could catch the Luoknow mail arriving at Bareilly at 2 or 3 at night and thus reach Budaun at 10 A.M. He had admittedly purchased railway tickets and, therefore, there was no question of his travelling by a particular train. Further, having reached Budaun at 1 P.M. the accused was admitted in Budaun Jail at 5 P.M. No explanation has been furnished why he was not immediately admitted in Budaun Jail. The question arises why did the police of Budaun consider it necessary to disregard the order of the ADM (J), Delhi. The disregard of the order can amount to contempt of that court for which action can be taken by the Delhi High Court. In case, the Budaun police was acting in good faith they would not have behaved in this manner. If it was necessary to transfer the accused to Budaun the proper thing was to move the ADM (J), Delhi, for modification of the earlier order. But for so long as that order existed it should have been complied with. When no plausible explanation has been furnished for disregard of the order of the ADM (J), Delhi, the courts can presume that the underlying intention of the Budaun police was to some how show the accused to the witnesses and thus secure his conviction. Similar inference can be drawn from the conduct of Babu Singh, Head Constable. 6. In the above circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of identification and Ratan Singh deserves acquittal. 7. The appeal is hereby allowed and Ratan Singh is acquitted of the charge u/s 396, IPC. Similar inference can be drawn from the conduct of Babu Singh, Head Constable. 6. In the above circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of identification and Ratan Singh deserves acquittal. 7. The appeal is hereby allowed and Ratan Singh is acquitted of the charge u/s 396, IPC. His conviction and sentence are set aside. He is on bail and the bonds are discharged. 8. A copy of this order shall be sent to Chief Secretary, U.P. Govt., Lucknow, for information and taking such action as may be considered necessary.