JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants, Ramlal and Ram Laliya, have been convicted under Section 395 I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 50/- each. 2. It is alleged that they were among the five dacoits who committed dacoity armed with deadly weapons, in the house of Jagdish Narain Sharma on March 21, 1978 at 2 A.M. None of the dacoits was mentioned by name in the F. I. R. No description of any of the culprits was given in that document. 3. The appellants were arrested on September 4, 1978. They were kept in the police lock-up till September 8, 1978. They are said to have been put up for test-identification on September 14, 1978. The prosecution case is that Jagdish Narain, Nanuram and Bhanwarlal correctly identified them in the parade. 4. Among the witnesses examined in the trial, the prosecution also examined Nanuram, Jagdish Narain and Bhanwarlal aforementioned. Devchand Meena (PW. 9), a Magistrate who held the test-identification parade, was also examined as a witness for the prosecution. 5. Relying only on the evidence of identification by Nanuram, Bhanwarlal and Jagdish Narain as corroborated by such identification of appellants by them at the test-identification parade, the learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty under Section 395 I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned earlier. 6. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the defence, has argued that there is no satisfactory evidence on record to prove that the appellants were put up for test-identification before Shri Devchand Meena, a Magistrate, on September 4, 1980. He referred in this connection to the deposition made by Devchand Meena (PW. 9) and pointed out that the Magistrate frankly admitted that he cannot re-call anything about the test-identification without seeing the memorandum of proceedings of identification prepared by him He admitted that the document Ex. P. 1 shown to him as the memo of the proceedings, is not the original memo prepared by him. It is not clear from Ex P. 1 as to who prepared this document and on what basis. That being so, the evidence of Shri Devchand Meena is of no value. The entire statement made by Shri Meena is based on Ex. P. 1 which is not admissible in evidence. Shri Meena's evidence must, therefore, be ignored. 7. It is not clear from Ex P. 1 as to who prepared this document and on what basis. That being so, the evidence of Shri Devchand Meena is of no value. The entire statement made by Shri Meena is based on Ex. P. 1 which is not admissible in evidence. Shri Meena's evidence must, therefore, be ignored. 7. We are thus, left with the testimony of PWs Nanuram, Bhanwarlal and Jagdish Narain who identified the appellants in the trial. The law is well settled by now that such identification in the trial without the safe-guard of a prior identification during the investigation is not sufficient to provide basis for conviction on such i serious charge as that of dacoity. It will, therefore, not be safe to convict the appellants on the basis of the evidence of these witnesses. 8. There is no other evidence on the record. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside. Instead, the appellants are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Sd/- K. S. Sidhu, J.Appeal Allowed. *******