S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) KULPAT, Najeem, Jaglal and Bhaulal were tried for charges under Sections 457 and 380 I. P. C. Baduji, Santram and Jhingu lal were also tried in the same case on charges under Section 411 I. P. C. The trial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 26-4-80 acquitted all these accused of the charges that had been framed against them. Aggrieved by that acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, respondent Kulpat and Jhingula expired. Therefore, the appeal against them stood abated. The remaining respondents except for respondent Jaglal are being represented by different counsel. Respondent Jaglal could not be served in spite of repeated efforts having been made. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated is that in the night intervening 6th and 7th October, 1978, a theft had taken place at the house of Chainlal (PW 3)-in village Barbaspur. In that theft some ornaments and other properties were allegedly taken away by the culprits. The first information report Ex. p. 5 was lodged by Chainlal (PW 3) in police station Waraseoni at about 1. 30 P. M. on 7- 1078. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested. Different properties are said to have been recovered and seized at the instance of different accused. The properties so recovered had been put up for identification which are alleged to have been identified by Chainlal (PW 3) and his wife Milkibai (PW 4 ). ( 4 ) GAJENDRA Singh (PW 1) and Premlal (PW 2) have stated that respondent Najeem in their presence had given an information to the police officer about his having sold a SARI to co-accused Badu. The information so given was recorded in Ex. p. I. In consequence of that information, the SARI was seized from respondent Badu vide memorandum Ex. p. 2. They have also testified about the information said to have been given by respondent Bhaulal to the police officer with regard to an empty bag which he had kept in his house. The information was recorded in memorandum Ex. p. 3. That bag was seized vide memorandum Ex. p. 4 from the house of Bhaulal. p. 2. They have also testified about the information said to have been given by respondent Bhaulal to the police officer with regard to an empty bag which he had kept in his house. The information was recorded in memorandum Ex. p. 3. That bag was seized vide memorandum Ex. p. 4 from the house of Bhaulal. ( 5 ) IT appears that some articles had also been recovered and seized on the information of Jaglal and Santram, but for reasons best known to the prosecution, the witnesses in respect to those informations and seizures, have not been examined. It is further found that at the trial the Investigating Officer also was not examined. ( 6 ) THE identification of the properties which had been recovered was conducted Shyamlal (PW 5 ). The identification memorandum is Ex. P. 6. The articles which had been put up for identification were two. fishing nets, a SARI, a sieve, two silver CHHALLE and a gunny bag. Shyamlal (PW 5) has statf;d that four to five articles of each type had been mixed before the identification proceedings. He in his cross-examination admitted that the articles which had been mixed. had been arranged by the police before he had arrived. He has further admitted that only one of those fishing nets which had been mixed was of the colour similar to the ones which had to be identified. He could not even say whether the colour of the SARI that had been mixed was the same as of the SARI which was to be identified. Milkibai (PW 4) in her cross-examination admitted that the police had shown her the SARI, the bag and the fishing nets after their recovery and seizure and before she had identified them in the identification proceedings. ( 7 ) THE articles that were put up for identification were of common use. The identification proceedings are wholly unsatisfactory. There is evidence which indicates that the police had shown those articles, atleast to one of the witnesses before the identification was conducted. The possibility of those articles having been shown even to the other witnesses Chainlal (PW3) cannot in the circumstances be ruled out. I t is, therefore, not proved that the properties that bad been seized are the same which had been stolen or belonged to the complainant. The recoveries from some of the accused have not been proved at all. The possibility of those articles having been shown even to the other witnesses Chainlal (PW3) cannot in the circumstances be ruled out. I t is, therefore, not proved that the properties that bad been seized are the same which had been stolen or belonged to the complainant. The recoveries from some of the accused have not been proved at all. It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with any other question that may arise in this case- On the aforesaid short ground, none of the respondents can be held guilty for the offences with which he had been charged. ( 8 ) IN these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending even as against respondent Jaglal who has not been served. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Acquittal upheld .