G.K. SHARMA, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-8-84 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur by which he convicted the appellants u/s 412 I.P.C. and sentenced them to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month R.I. 2. Devi Charan Gupta submitted a written report at P.S. Gadhi Bazna, Distt. Bharatpur on 7-4-81 regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on 5-4-81 alleging therein that about 30-35 miscreants had looted the property consisting of cash, watches and ration from the persons who were travelling in truck No. RRR 1219 and RJG 2479. On this report FIR u/s 382 IPC was prepared. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted challan against three appellants u/s 395 and 397 IPC. Three accused persons have been shown absconded. 3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellants u/s 395 and 397 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned lower court found the appellants guilty u/s 412 IPC only and sentenced them as mentioned above. 4. Both the appellants have been found guilty on the basis of recovery of the watches at their instance. Except this evidence, there is no other circumstance to connect these appellants with this crime. Now it is to be seen where the circumstances of recovery of watches is sufficient to convict them. Whether the evidence of recovery of these watches is believable or not. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and also perused the record and the connected evidence of recovery of the watches and their identification. 6. Both the appellants were arrested and were put to identification test. They have not been identified as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Two watches were recovered from the appellant Ram Charan on his information!. The recovery of one watch was made on 1-8-81 and of second watch on 2-8-81. So both these watches were recovered on different dales. PW 3 Shri Padam Singh and PW 7 Raghuveer Singh are the recovery witnesses and both are the Police officials. No independent witness was not present at the time of recovery. The statement of police officials cannot be discarded on the ground that they are police officials. But their statements are to be read continuously. PW 3 Shri Padam Singh and PW 7 Raghuveer Singh are the recovery witnesses and both are the Police officials. No independent witness was not present at the time of recovery. The statement of police officials cannot be discarded on the ground that they are police officials. But their statements are to be read continuously. I have gone through their statements and found that they contradicts each other. S.H.O. Narayan Sahai PW 13 says that one watch was recovered on 1-8-81 and the second was recovered on 2-8-81. PW 3 Padam Singh stated that both the watches were recovered on one day while PW 7 Raghuveer Singh says that they were recovered on different dates. This type of evidence shows that the witnesses who are police officials, are unreliable witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their statements. 8. One watch was recovered on the information of accused Kaptan. PW 10 Pyarelal and PW 11 Jawan Singh are the recovery witnesses. Both these witnesses have been examined but they have not supported the prosecution case. Both have been declared hostile. Thus the evidence of recovery of watches on the information of the accused is unreliable and unsatisfactory. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly. 9. The identification test of 3 watches was held which was conducted by Shri Raja Ram Verma PW 12, the then Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. 10. The watch which was alleged to have been recovered from accused Kaptan was put to identification and was identified by PW 5 Valaidin to be his. The witness in his cross examination has stated that the police had shown him the watch at Bayana. It means that the watch was shown to the witness before its identification test. Hence the identification test has no value. The learned trial has erred in placing reliance on this circumstance. 11. The statement of Narain Sahai PW 13 was read over. In the cross examination he has stated that it is correct that the chain of one watch was broken. In this condition it was recovered. It was sealed in this condition and was put to identification in the same condition. Now the important aspect is whether the watch which was mixed at the time of identification test had broken chain. In this respect the test memos Ex. P. 10 and Ex. P./l1 perused. In this condition it was recovered. It was sealed in this condition and was put to identification in the same condition. Now the important aspect is whether the watch which was mixed at the time of identification test had broken chain. In this respect the test memos Ex. P. 10 and Ex. P./l1 perused. There is no mention in this memos that the chain of the watch is broken. It is also not mentioned that the watch which was mixed by the Magistrate had broken chain. The statement of Magistrate Raja Ram Verma PW !2 was also perused. In the cross examination he has admitted that no note has been put in the Test Memo that chain of one watch was broken, and the glass of the watch was also broken. It has not been mentioned in the memo that the watch had chain with it or not. After reading the statement of Magistrate Raja Ram PW 12 it becomes clear that this Magistrate does not know how the identification parade of articles are to be held. He does not know what formalities and precautions are to be taken at the time of holding identification parade- It is matter of great regret that the Magistrate who has been given the power of conducting the identification parades does not know the basic principles of conducting and holding a parade. The Magistrate did not care to read the provision of law with regard to conducting identification parade. Such identification has no value. The learned trial has committed error in placing reliance on this circumstance and evidence. 12. After perusing the record I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has erred in finding the appellants guilty u/s 412 IPC. 13. As a result the appeal is accepted. The judgment of the trial court is set aside. The appellants are not found guilty of the offence u/s 412 I.P.C. and both are acquitted. Both the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They need not surrender.