P. C. PATHAK J. ( 1 ) THE four applicants/accused have filed this revision against their convictions under section 392 IPC and their release on probation of good conduct for a period of three years. Each applicant was also required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2150/-as compensation. Out of the amount so realized, it was ordered that compensation Rs. 100/- per goat will be paid to complainants Babu, Mohan and Haiku. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 29-5. 1979 Babu (P. W. 1) and Mohan (P. W. 2) were grazing their goats in Chhapar Forest. Meanwhile four persons came, and bandaged their eyes tied their hands and drove away all the goats. After the miscreants took away the goats, Mohan and Babu some bow managed to open their eyes and untied their hands. They informed the village people about the robbery. Haiku lodged FIR (Ex. P-2) in the police station Sarayatha. The police seized a towel and five pieces of cloth from the spot-vide seizure memo Ex. P-3. The accused persons were arrested on 17-9-1979. They were put up for identification on 7-11-1979, vide memo Ex. p. Sin which Mohan identified all the four applicants. Babu could not identify anyone of them. ( 3 ) ALL the accused denied their guilt and claimed trial. They examined one witness Bhalchand in their defence. The trial Court by judgment dated 2-5-1983, found all the applicants guilty under section 392 IPC and sentenced them to R. I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default R. I. for five months more. The applicants filed appeal in which their convictions under section 392 were maintained. The sentences awarded to them were set aside and instead, they were released on probation of good conduct for a period of 3 years on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and paying compensation Rs. 2150/- per head. Rs. 8600/- was ordered to be paid to Babu (P W. 1), Mohan (P. W. 2) and Haiku as compensation Rs. 100/- per goat. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argued that their conviction under section 392 IPC is wholly unwarranted and they deserve to be acquitted. In this connection learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even though the accused were arrested on 17-9-1979 yet the identification parade was arranged on 7-11-1979. The delay was not explained. Hence this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argued that their conviction under section 392 IPC is wholly unwarranted and they deserve to be acquitted. In this connection learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even though the accused were arrested on 17-9-1979 yet the identification parade was arranged on 7-11-1979. The delay was not explained. He also argued that the person who conducted the parade was not examined which caused serious handicap in their defence. I am unable to accept these arguments. Bhanupratap Singh (P. W. 8) conducted the test identification parade inside jail. He stated that, he mixed 24 persons with the accused persons and he called Mohan and Babu one after the other. Mohan alone identified all the four accused but Babu did not identify anyone. In cross-examination he admitted that he knew the accused from before that they are basors and their profession is to beat drums. He also could not recall if he had engaged the accused persons about four years ago to beat drums during a marriage ceremony and had paid less amount to them. He also admitted that his relations with Station House Officer Sarayatha are very cordial and he had conducted 40-50 identification parades in the past. Ramcharan (P. W. 7) is the Investigating Officer. He was not at all cross-examined. No question was put to him or Bhanupratap about the alleged delay or any other irregularity in the conduct of identification. In Bharat Singh v. State of U P. 1, the Supreme Court held that if accused do not question the said witnesses about the delay and irregularities, they cannot be allowed to develop arguments on these counts. The first submission is therefore rejected. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel I for the applicants next argued that in the test parade Mohan alone identified the accused persons. My attention was drawn to his admission in cross-examination that he had gone to identify the accused persons in the police station, where they were kept in lock-up. Babu had also seen them. The police then brought them oul of the jail and mixed them with 20-25 persons in the parade. The learned lower appellate Court explained this part of his statement by observing that he is a child witness and therefore he could not distinguish, while deposing in the Court, between Jail and police station. Babu had also seen them. The police then brought them oul of the jail and mixed them with 20-25 persons in the parade. The learned lower appellate Court explained this part of his statement by observing that he is a child witness and therefore he could not distinguish, while deposing in the Court, between Jail and police station. This may be so, but it was a duty of the, prosecution to obtain clarification to that effect on re-examination. Babu (P. W. 1) also made similar admissions. Mohan alone identified the accused in the test parade but not Babu. Babus claim of identification in the Court was therefore no value. The conviction thus rests solely on testimony of Mohan, which suffers from the infirmities mentioned above and therefore, the convictions cannot be sustained. In my opinion, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 6 ) THE doubt is further raised by the fact that the prosecution did not explain the whereabouts of eighty six missing goats. It is also not clear as to what led to the arrests of the applicants. Mere examination of some witnesses to say that the accused were taking away the goats without identifying the goats as belonging to the complainant is of no consequence. ( 7 ) THE revision is therefore allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and alt the four applicants are acquitted of the charges. .