G. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment shall also govern disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 1985 (Sugga Chamar v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 1985 (Siddu v. State of M. P.), as they arise out of the same Judgment dated 3rd August, 1985 passed by Shri. N. S. Chouhan, Special Judge, Damoh in Special Case No. 34 of 1982. Appellants in this appeal have found guilty of offence punishable under section 395 I. P. C. and sentenced to five years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further R. I. for three months each. Appellants in other two appeals have been found guilty of offence punishable under section 412 I. P. C. and sentenced to three years R. I. and fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further R. I. for three months. ( 2 ) THE appellants along with six others were put on trial for offence under section 395 I. P. C. on the allegation that in the night dated 18-11-1981, they committed dacoity in the house of Ramnath at village Bihua and looted gold and silver ornaments. Specific case of the prosecution against the appellants was that at about 10. 00 P. M. of the date of the incident, Bihari came running to his house from the village side telling that dacoits have entered into the village. He, his brother Mukundi together with their wives and children, therefore, ran away from the house. Dacoits, however forced open the house and assaulted Ramnath, the elder brother of Mukundi and Bihari and looted gold and silver ornaments. The incident was reported at P. S. Gaisahad by Ramnath on the basis of, which F. I. R. (Ex. P-27) was recorded. Appellants Dachchu and Siddu along with others were arrested on 1-1-1982 and during investigation, gave their statements. which were recorded in memorandum under section 21 of the Evidence Act. Appellants Sugga, Bhagona and Shanker were arrested on 18-1-1982 and gave similar memorandum statements during investigation. On the basis of these memorandum, looted property was seized. Identification of the appellants and also the property was separately done. After full and proper investigation, the appellants were prosecuted as aforesaid. which were recorded in memorandum under section 21 of the Evidence Act. Appellants Sugga, Bhagona and Shanker were arrested on 18-1-1982 and gave similar memorandum statements during investigation. On the basis of these memorandum, looted property was seized. Identification of the appellants and also the property was separately done. After full and proper investigation, the appellants were prosecuted as aforesaid. The learned Special Judge relying on evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution held that the dacoity had taken place in the house of Ramnath in the night of 18- 11-1982. The learned Judge relying upon the identification parade, held that appellants Dachchu. Shankar and Bhagona have been properly identified as persons participating in the parade. Relying on memoranda and discovery of looted property and test identification, the learned Special Judge held that it was the looted property. On these findings appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 1985 were found guilty of offence under section 395 I. P. C. while the appellants in two other appeals were held guilty of offence under Section 412 I. P. C. only. Out of those seven appellants found guilty and sentenced, only five have preferred their appeals. ( 3 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the identification parade held for establishing identity of the appellants was not only delayed, but otherwise unreliable. Even the identification of property is said to be unduly delayed and otherwise of no legal value. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution case against the appellants is based on police witnesses without any independent corroboration. On the contrary, the independent witnesses do not support the prosecution. It is therefore, submitted that the conviction based on police witnesses alone should not be sustained. As regards sentence, it is submitted that in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, sentence imposed upon them is harsh. ( 4 ) THE facts on record clearly indicate that appellant Dachchu was arrested on 7-1-1982 whereas appellants Bhagona and Shankar on 18. 1-1982. The parade for their identification was held on 1-4-1982. Phul Singh Chauhan (P. W. 16) during his cross-examination has stated that on 1-2-1982 order for holding identification parade had been held and Shri Mishra, Naib Tahsildar had been appointed for the said purpose. According to him, since the Naib Tahsildar was on leave, the parade could not be held upto 3-2-1982. On 2. Phul Singh Chauhan (P. W. 16) during his cross-examination has stated that on 1-2-1982 order for holding identification parade had been held and Shri Mishra, Naib Tahsildar had been appointed for the said purpose. According to him, since the Naib Tahsildar was on leave, the parade could not be held upto 3-2-1982. On 2. 2-1982, Naib Tahsildar Shri Shrivastava fixed 6- 3. 1982 as the date for holding parade. The puade, however, could not be held because Naib Tahsildar was not available. Thereafter, on 20-3-1982, the Naib Tahsildar fixed another date 1- 4. 1982 and the parade was held on that date (paras 54 to 59 ). It, however, appears that the identification parade was held by Shri B. S. Mehra (P. W. 19) vide Ex. P-25. Now, if Shri Mehra was available for holding the test identification parade, explanation given by Phul Singh (P. W. 16) cannot be held relevant for explaining the dealy. He does not say that Shri Mehra had taken over from Shri Shrivastava, Naib Tahsildar. First appointing 3hri Mishra, Naib Tahsildar, thereafter Shri, Shrivastava. Naib Tahsildar and ultimately Shri Mehra, Naib Tahsildar, cannot be accepted as valid excuse for holding the charge with undue delay. This, if at all, expresses the casualness with which the matter was at tented to. Test identification parade must be accepted as a solemn exercise with a view to find corroboration to the identification of the accused persons in the Court and is, therefore required to be conducted before the memory fades and circumstances intervened. Shri Mehra (P. W. 10) has not supported Phul Singh as he has denied knowledge of the receipt of intimation and the delay itself. It is true that the learned Sessions Judge has accepted explanation given by Phul Singh (P. W. 16) and given a clean chit to the test identification parade. The learned Special Judge, however, has not considered the same in the contex of law on the subject. If a test identification parade has to be held without any undue delay, administrative occupation of officers would not be a valid explanation for the delay. After all, the requirement of law must be complied with by attaching due priority to the work. From the explanation given by Phul Singh Chauhan, it is clear that no valid explanation for not holding the parade in time has been given. After all, the requirement of law must be complied with by attaching due priority to the work. From the explanation given by Phul Singh Chauhan, it is clear that no valid explanation for not holding the parade in time has been given. His explanation, if at all, reflects the casualness with which the matter has been handled. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the identification parade held on 1-4-1982 was held after undue delay of about two and a half months for which there is no reasonable explanation. ( 5 ) AS far as identification of property is concerned, the same has been held on 22-2-1982 (Ex. P-24 ). The property was recovered on 18-1-1982 (Ex. P-4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and Ex. P. 17 ). Some other property was recovered on 14-1-1982 vide Exhibits P-b, P-il, P-12, P-13 and P-14. The identification for this purpose was held by Umrao Singh (P. W. 6) as would be clear from Ex. P-24. There is a delay of about one month in bolding this identification Memo (Ex, P-24) has been witnessed by Ferai (P. W. 13) and Umrao Singh (P. W. 6 ). Ferai (P. W. 13) however, has turned hostile and has denied that any identification was done in his presence. According to him, he had signed the memo because Daroga Saheb asked him to sign. Under the circumstances, Umrao Singh is the only independent witness to this parade. He had also been declared hostile. According to him, all witnesses had come together for identification and had identified their ornaments. According to him, only those many ornaments were placed for identification as were identified. His evidence cannot be accepted as sufficient to prove the identification. In case his evidence has to be relied upon, the identification memo (Ex. P-24) will have to be excluded. The learned Sessions Judge has, however, accepted the evidence of identification because Bhagwati Bai (P. W. 7), Ramnath (P. W. 10) and Badi Bahu (P. W. 11) supports the same. Phul Singh Chauhan has not given any explanation about the delay in holding this parade. Because of absence of any explanation and evidence of Umrao Singh (P. W. 6) and Phirai (P. W. 13), the value of the identification of property also remains considerably reduced. Added with this is the fact that no witness had earlier given any description or identifying mark of the property. Because of absence of any explanation and evidence of Umrao Singh (P. W. 6) and Phirai (P. W. 13), the value of the identification of property also remains considerably reduced. Added with this is the fact that no witness had earlier given any description or identifying mark of the property. ( 6 ) THE next and important question is whether the appellants gave statement contained in their memoranda resulting in discovery of the property. Ex. P-5, Ex. P. 6 and Ex. P. 17 are the memoranda executed by the appellants in this appeal. Ex. P. 20 is the memorandum executed by appellant Siddu. Ex. P-4 is the memorandum executed by appellant Sugga. Memoranda Ex. P-4, Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 are witnessed by Mulya Gond and Nathuram Patel. Nathuram (P. W. 4) had turned hostile and Mulya Gond had not been examined. The learned trial Judge, has considered evidence of Nathuram in para-32 of the impugned judgment and hold these memoranda proved on the basis of evidence of Phulsingh Chauhan. It is true that evidence of police personnel is by itself not unreliable. Inspite of it, Investigating Officer has been accepted to be a person interested in securing conviction and Courts have been reluctant in relying on his evidence alone in convicting an accused person. If witnesses to these memoranda were otherwise not available, the position would have been different. The witnesses are available. If out of the two witnesses only one is produced, who does not support the prosecution and there is no explanation for non-production of the other, the position would be entirely different. In such a situation, to accept the statement of Investigating Officer and hold that the appellants had given statements leading to discovery of looted property, it would only be amounting to reducing provisions of section-27 of the Evidence Act to an empty formality. Section-27 of the Evidence Act has to be taken little more seriously as it has the effect of condemning an accused person on his own statement, which is not the normal rule in criminal trial. This Court is, therefore, not able to accept these memoranda only because Phul Singh Chauhan (P. W. 16) proves the same. ( 7 ) MEMORANDUM (Ex. P. 1?) said to have been executed by appellant Dachchu and memorandum (Ex. P. 20) alleged to have been executed by appellant Siddu are witnessed by Durag Singh and Manaklal. This Court is, therefore, not able to accept these memoranda only because Phul Singh Chauhan (P. W. 16) proves the same. ( 7 ) MEMORANDUM (Ex. P. 1?) said to have been executed by appellant Dachchu and memorandum (Ex. P. 20) alleged to have been executed by appellant Siddu are witnessed by Durag Singh and Manaklal. The learned trial Judge in para-25 of the impugned judgment has found these memoranda proved on the basis of evidence of Phul Sing Chauhan (P. W. 16 ). Manaklal (P. W. 5) is the only witness examined to prove these memoranda. This witness has also turned hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined. During his cross-examination, he has admitted his signatures on Ex, P-17 and Ex. P-20. Inspite of it, he denies that any statement was given in his presence as contained in these memoranda. Durag Singh has not been examined nor there is any explanation why he was not examined. Under the circumstances it may be reasonable to assume that if he had been examined, he would have also not supported the prosecution case. Under the circumstances, for the reasons relevant for memoranda (Ex. P-5, P-4 and Ex P-6) these memoranda also cannot be accepted as having been properly proved. ( 8 ) THE upshot of the discussion is that the prosecution case against the appellants is found not proved and they are, therefore, acquitted. Their appeals succeed and are allowed. Since the property alleged to have seized from their possession is not claimed by them as their own, it would be returned as per direction of the Special Judge contained in the impugned-judgment. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the appellants would stand cancelled. If anyone of them is in jail undergoing the sentence, he shall be released forthwith. .