JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. A complaint lodged by Tameezan against the petitioners is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City. On April 6. 1983, when the statement of witness Sheru was being recorded the presence of the petitioners was felt necessary, because the witness does not know the names of the petitioners. The learned judicial Magistrate directed the petitioners to be present in the court for completing the statement of this witness. Against this order, the petitioners have come up before this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments has referred to the decision in Kanan and others v. State of Kerala (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1127) . In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held : "Where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I. parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I. parade under Section 9 is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I. parade is held them it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court." 3. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has argued that PTW Sheru does not know the names of the petitioners because of this fact their presence is very essential for completing his statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given a assurrance that the identity of Petitioners is not disputed and as such their presence in person in the court is not necessary. For this, it is directed that the petitioners Smt. Noorjahan, Ms. Razia, Mst. Taira, Mst. Shansharan, and Mst. Afroz will submit an application in the trial court that their identify is not disputed. The personal attendance of these petitioners should not be compelled. 4. Therefore, this petition is accepted with the directions that the petitioners will file an application in the lower court within three weeks i. e. before the date of hearing given by the trial court. Their personal appearance in the court will not be insisted. The personal attendance of these petitioners should not be compelled. 4. Therefore, this petition is accepted with the directions that the petitioners will file an application in the lower court within three weeks i. e. before the date of hearing given by the trial court. Their personal appearance in the court will not be insisted. The order dated April 6, 1983, is therefore quashed. *******