JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the trial courts, order dated January 8, 1980 convicting the appellants under section 458, 395 and 397 I.P.C. and the order dated January 9, 1980, whereby each of the appellants was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 458 IPC. and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month under sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently in respect of each of the appellants. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On the night between September 4 and 5, 1978, at about 10.30 or 11 P.M. 8 persons armed with deadly weapons like guns and pistols committed dacoity in the house of Hukam Chand P.W. situate in Village Nagli and decamped with cash amounting to Rs. 8210/-. and gold and silver ornaments. The report of the occurrence Ex. P/1 was lodged with the Laxmangarh police by Hukam Chand himself in September 5, 1978 at 5 a.m. He mentioned in the F.I.R. that Padma Jat and Brijbhan were among the culprits who committed this crime. 3. Sub-Inspector Gurwant Singh (PW 11) immediately took up investigation and inspected the scene of crime. He recovered 8 empty cartridges from there. He arrested Mangla Yadram and Prakash, the present appellants, vide arrest memo Ex. P/11 Ex. P/12 and Ex/13, respectively, on October 21, 1978 immediately after effecting the arrest of the appellants, Gurwant Singh kept them Baparda so that none of the witnesses could see them. They were immediately sent to the judicial lock-up under orders of the Magistrate concerned. The test identification parade in the case was held by a Magistrate, Ratanlal (PW 8) on October 31, 1978. The memorandum of proceedings regarding the said parade, as prepared by the learned Magistrate, is Ex. P/4. It is alleged that Hukam Chand Bhagwati and Jayram correctly identified all the three appellants at the said parade. 4. The prosecution story further goes that the appellant Yadram made a disclosure statement. Ex. P/16, on November 14, 1978 as a consequence of which stolen property har Article 1, and bangles Article 2, were recovered vide memo Ex. P/19. P/4. It is alleged that Hukam Chand Bhagwati and Jayram correctly identified all the three appellants at the said parade. 4. The prosecution story further goes that the appellant Yadram made a disclosure statement. Ex. P/16, on November 14, 1978 as a consequence of which stolen property har Article 1, and bangles Article 2, were recovered vide memo Ex. P/19. Similarly Mangla and Prakash made disclosure statements. Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18 respectively, on the even date resulting in recovery of stolen property, naveri Article 5 and Kankati Article 6, from the possession of Mangal vide memo Ex. P/20 and stolen property jhumki Article 4 and santh Article 3 from the possession of Prakash, vide recovery memo Ex. P/21. 5. Relying on the evidence regarding identification and recovery of the stolen property as mentioned above the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 6. After hearing both sides, and examining the evidence on record quite carefully, I am of opinion that the impugned order of conviction and sentence cannot possibly be sustained. The test identification parade was held as stated above, by Ratan Lal PW 8 on October 31, 1978. Guawant Singh (PW 11) the investigating Officer would have us believe that he arrested the appellants on October 21, 1978 and that he obtained orders and sent them to the Judicial lock up baparada. The prosecution is thus trying to establish that the test identification parade held on October 31 1978, and the identification of the appellants therein by Kukum Chand, Bhagwati and Jayaram PWs is not open to any doubt or objection. The appellants complained in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that they had been arrested by the police on September 26, 1978 and that they were kept in the police custody without lawful authority for more than a month before they were sent to the judicial lock up. The defence in that connection referred to a news-paper clipping containing the news of arrest of the appellants on September 26, 1978. The learned trial Judge did not rely on that clipping, and rightly so in my opinion. Such like news published in a news-paper cannot possibly be taken as evidence in the trial. The defence in that connection referred to a news-paper clipping containing the news of arrest of the appellants on September 26, 1978. The learned trial Judge did not rely on that clipping, and rightly so in my opinion. Such like news published in a news-paper cannot possibly be taken as evidence in the trial. There is however other evidence of a reliable character available on record which would prove that the appellants had in fact been arrested by the police somewhere in the third week of September 1978. Hukum Chand PW admitted in his cross examination that he was called by the police to the police station 15 or 16 days after the commission of this dacoity and told that the dacoits had already been arrested and that they had admitted to the possession of the stolen property by them. It may, therefore, be safely held that the appellants were in police custody on or about September 26, 1978 and that they were kept in police custody till they were sent to the judicial lock up in the last week of October 1978. Under the circumstances the test identification held by the learned Magistrate at the request of the police on October 31, 1978, is of no avail. It would be reasonable to believe that all the three appellants had been shown to the witnesses by the police during the period they were in the custody of the police from September 26 to October 21, 1978. It is significant to note that Hukam Chand at whose instance F.I.R. was registered did not give the description of any dacoit in the F.I.R. Gurwant Singh, the Investigating Officer, further stated that none of the witnesses gave the description of any culprit in their statements under section 161 Cr. P.C. PW Jayram also admitted that he did not give the description of the culprits to the police. Gurwant Singh has not explained in his evidence in the trial as to how he came to know that the present appellant were among the culprits and what led him to arrest them. All the circumstances mentioned above would show that the alleged identification of the appellants by the witnesses, in the trial carries no evidentiary value. 7. PW Gurwant Singh has further stated that Yadram, Mangal and Prakash made the disclosure statements Ex. P/16, Ex. P/17 and Ex. All the circumstances mentioned above would show that the alleged identification of the appellants by the witnesses, in the trial carries no evidentiary value. 7. PW Gurwant Singh has further stated that Yadram, Mangal and Prakash made the disclosure statements Ex. P/16, Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18, respectively on November 14 1978 and that as a consequence of the said statements he recovered various items of stolen property at their instance. It is significant to note that except for the self serving statement of Gurwant Singh no independent witness has been produced to prove that the alleged disclosures were made by the appellants. It is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the appellants. The prosecution cited two witnesses namely Sawai and Lakhmi in whose presence the stolen property is alleged to have been recovered. Sawai was not examined as a witness in the trial. Lakhmi who was examined testified that one bag containing Kankati Article 6 naveri Article 5 gold necklace Art 1, and bangles Article 2 were recovered from the house of Mangal accused. He would have us believe that Yadram also went inside Mangal's house and helped the latter in bringing out the same. He further stated that Prakash Produced Santh Article 3 and jhumki Article 4 from his kotha. 8. I have very carefully considered the evidence of Lakhmi and am of opinion that he is not a reliable witness. He is an employee in the police working at P.S. Laxmangarh. He was, so to say, hand-Picked by the police from Laxmangarh and was taken to village Dorala to effect the so-called recovery. It is not explained as to why some respectable person from Dorala was not associated with these proceedings. More over the so-called recoveries from the house of Mangal cannot possibly be assigned to Yadram. 9. All said and done the recoveries of the stolen property by the police carries no evidentiary value. 10. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside. Instead the appellants are acquitted. Appellant Yadram is already on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. The other two appellants Mangal and Prakash are in Jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with some other case. The orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside. Instead the appellants are acquitted. Appellant Yadram is already on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. The other two appellants Mangal and Prakash are in Jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with some other case. The stolen property will be restored to the complainant as ordered by the trial court.Revision dismissed. *******