JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - Hira, Appellant has been convicted and sentenced u/s 395 IPC to under go RI for 7 years. 2. It is undisputed that the dacoity in question took place on 5-3-1973 at about 8 P.M. in the shop of Sahti, PW 2, in village Bagaha, police station Salem-pur, district Deoria by a gang of 10-11 bandits. At that time Meena, PW 10, son of Sahti, PW 2 was at the shop. Sahti was at his house. One of the dacoits threw a bomb which injured Meena and Mithu. On hearing hue and cry the village people armed with lathis and ballams and having torches turned up. A heap of pual was burnt by one Shyam Behari. The dacoits took to their heels. The village people gave a chase and succeeded in apprehending 3 dacoits. One of them, however, was taken away by his companions. The other two were badily assaulted by the village people. One of them Pateshwari died. The other one is present Appellant. He gave out his name to the village people. Sahti lodged a report of the occurrence at 9.5 hours. The police station is 6 miles away. 3. Defence of the Appellant was that he had a quarrel with the Station Officer on the road and that, therefore, he was falsely implicated in this case. Hira asserted that he had asked for identification by the village people. 4. The prosecution examined Sahti, Khub Lal, Kamla Yadav, Ram Sukh, Budh Ram, Ramayan and Meena, P Ws 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to prove its case. Khub Lal stated that no dacoit was arrested on the spot. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. Kamla Yadav stated that 2 dacoits were arrested. He did not state about the arrest of the third dacoit. Therefore, he was declared hostile. The other 5 prosecution witnesses clearly stated that 2 dacoits were arrested and assaulted, that one of them died and that the other one was the Appellant. 5. The prosecution further examined Pitamber Sukul, ASW, PW 11, who reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the lodging of the report. 6. The Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, convicted the Appellant as said above. 8. 5. The prosecution further examined Pitamber Sukul, ASW, PW 11, who reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the lodging of the report. 6. The Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Believing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, convicted the Appellant as said above. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and record examined with their assistance. 9. The Appellant's counsel has challenged the order of conviction on 2 grounds-- 1. the Appellant was not got identified by the prosecution witnesses, and 2. identity of the dacoit who was arrested on the spot was not established by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. For the reasons set out below both the grounds have no legs to stand. 1. Hira, Appellant gave an application, Ex. Kha 13 on 13-7-1973 to the Sessions Judge that he should be got identified by the witnesses of the village of occurrence or he should be released on bail. The learned trial Judge has repelled the contention of the Appellant on the ground that the application contained an alternative prayer for being released on bail. This reason of the court below is not borne out by the record. The record does not at all show that on the basis of the application dated 13-7-1973 the Sessions Judge granted him bail. Record shows that Hira, Appellant remained in jail up to atleast 5-11-1974 vide order sheet and English notes. On 10-1-1975 Hira was absent. His bail was ordered to be cancelled. It means that Hira was granted bail in this case on a date between 5-11-1974 and 10-1-1975. However, there is no material on record to show that the bail order was passed on the application dated 13-7-1973. It will be noticed that the police submitted chargesheet in the Magistrate's court on 22-11-1973. The case was committed to the court of Session on 13-4-1974. It is thus apparent that the application dated 13-7-1973 was moved before the submission of the chargesheet by the police in the Magistrate's court. It means that on 13-7-1973 the case was under investigation by the police. Neither the Sessions Judge, nor the committing Magistrate had any concern with the case except to grant bail in accordance with law. It is thus apparent that the application dated 13-7-1973 was moved before the submission of the chargesheet by the police in the Magistrate's court. It means that on 13-7-1973 the case was under investigation by the police. Neither the Sessions Judge, nor the committing Magistrate had any concern with the case except to grant bail in accordance with law. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Sessions Judge could direct the police to get the Appellant identified during investigation. The Sessions Judge gets jurisdiction of the case after its commitment to the court of Session. In these circumstances the Sessions Judge could not have passed any order on the application dated 13-7-1973 for the identification of the Appellant. Code of Criminal Procedure confers inherent powers on the High Courts and not the Courts of Sessions or Magistrates. Hence, correctly speaking the Appellant was not justified in moving the application before the Sessions Judge. He should have moved application to the Superintendent of police or any prosecuting agency. In these circumstances if no order was passed by the Sessions Judge on the Appellant's application dated 13-7-1973, no benefit can be given to the Appellant. There is nothing on the record to show that the application dated 13-7-1973 came to the notice of the Sessions Judge, In case an application is moved in the office and it is not put up before the Presiding Officer and the party concerned does not press it, no advantage can be taken by the party concerned merely on the ground of his having moved an application. The record does not indicate that the prayer of the Appellant for identification was ever pressed before the Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case or the Magistrate who committed the Appellant to the court of Session. In the circumstances and facts of this case, the Appellant cannot get any advantage of his moving the application dated 13-7-1973. 2. There is positive evidence of Meena, PW 10, that the Appellant was arrested on the spot and he had given out his name as Hira. In cross-examination he clearly stated that the face of the dacoit who was arrested on the spot and who had given out his name as Hira fully resembled with the face of Hira, accused (Appellant). His statement gets support from the statement of Ramayan, PW 9. In cross-examination he clearly stated that the face of the dacoit who was arrested on the spot and who had given out his name as Hira fully resembled with the face of Hira, accused (Appellant). His statement gets support from the statement of Ramayan, PW 9. Jagdeo, constable came to the scene of occurrence along with Pitamber Sukul, ASI, PW 11, who reached the scene of occurrence at about 2 AM. Statement of Jai Shanker Singh, constable clerk, PW 6, shows that Hira was brought to the the police station by Jagdeo Singh, constable. Hira, Appellant was sent for medical examination by Jai Shanker Singh. Dr. B.M. Kidwai, PW 1, examined Hira on 6-3-1973 at 8.20 P.M. He was produced before the Doctor by Jagdeo, constable. 19 injuries were found on his person. Two of them were incised wounds. Taking into account the nature of the injuries found on the person of Hira and the weapons which the village people used in apprehending the dacoits, it is apparent that the Appellant received injuries at the hands of the people of the village of occurrence. Statement of Hira in respect of his quarrel with the Station Officer, Sub-Inspector, does not explain so many injuries including incised wounds. Therefore, his defence is wholly unbelievable. Ram Sukh, PW 7, has also corroborated the testimony of Meena and Ramayan. Budh Ram, PW 8, clearly stated that one of the dacoits who was caught on the spot gave out his name as Hira. Sahti, Appellant, stated the same. The material discussed above clearly shows that Hira, Appellant was arrested on the spot at the time of occurrence and there is absolutely no doubt about his identity. 11. No other point was urged. As the grounds asserted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are without force, the appeal has no merits. 12. Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Appellant u/s 395 IPC recorded by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria are affirmed. The Appellant is on bail. He shall forthwith be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.