Short Note : 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to each of the appellants under section 411, Indian Penal Code, passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1976 dated 27-3-1976. 2. Held : The wrist-watch (Art. C) which wall seized from the possession of the appellant Baturi, its make is shown as the same as has been shown in the list (Ex. P-6) and seizure-memo. (Ex. P-23). However, the discription is rather different. It was specifically mentioned in the list (Ex. P-6) that this watch had an arm showing the seconds, while it is not so in the seizure-memo. Nextly, the identification proceedings (Ex. P-3) were conducted by Panchamsingh, Sarpanch (PW. 10) on 27-11-1975. Curiously enough, the original identification memo, was not proved on record. Only the carbon copy was filed. Further, Panchamsingh (PW. 10) would say that he did not scribe this identification-memo. (Ex. P-3). He got it written by some Veterinary doctor who has not been examined in this case. Thirdly, Lajjaram (PW. 5) in paras 10 and 11 of his deposition has stated that the entire property was shown to the witnesses before the commencement of the identification test. Fourthly, Chandra (PW. 2) in para 6 of her deposition has stated that the identification test was held in the Thana and she signed the memo there itself. Lastly, there is no reason why Sultansingh who is said to be the actual owner of the wrist-watch (Art. C) and hand-bag (Art. C) has not been examined to identify the property as his own. 3. More or less, similar are the infirmities in the matter of hand-bag (Art. C). In the list (Ex. P-6) it was shown as a small bag of dhani-colour, but in the seizure there is no mention of the size and a different colour has been mentioned. The same are the infirmities in the matter of its identification. It may also be worth mentioning that only Ramhit (PW. 3) claimed to have identified this bag and not others. Sultansingh was not examined to identify. In the face of the aforesaid material infirmities, I am of the view that it would be unsafe to convict the appellants for the offence under section 411, Indian Penal Code. Appeal allowed.