K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, acquitting the respondents of the charge under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code has been challenged. ( 2 ) BEREFT of Unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that a dacoity took place in the midnight between 7-7-80 and 8-7-90 in the house of P. W. 1, the informant, of villages Ghatipir. In course of the dacoity some inmates of the, house were assaulted causing bleeding injuries. Some of the Women inmates were belaboured and gold ornaments were snatched away from their person. Valuables including cash and ornaments were stolen. P. W. 1 lodged First Information Report (Ext. 1) at the Police Station after which investigation commenced. During investigation the injured inmates of the house were examined by the Medical Officer (P. W. 4) and were treated. For the purpose of identification of the culprits P. W. 10, the Special Judicial Magistrate held test identification parades in his court room as well as inside the jail. The respondents having been identified in the test identification parades after close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against them for having committed dacoity in the house of P. W. 1. ( 3 ) THE respondents in their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied that they had participated in the dacoity. With regard to identification, they pleaded that the identifying witnesses were given opportunity of seeing them prior to the test identification parades, both inside the court as well as in the jail. ( 4 ) AFTER consideration of the prosecution evidence the learned Court below held that there was no proper identification of the respondents because the identifying witnesses had sufficient opportunity of seeing them before the test identification parades were conducted by P. W. 10 in his court room as well as inside the jail. Therefore, he recorded in order of acquittal. ( 5 ) DURING hearing it was not disputed that a dacoity had taken place in the house of P. W. 1 at midnight between 7-7-1980 and 8-7-1980 during the course of which some of the inmates of the house were assaulted and injured by the dacoits who decamped with gold ornaments and cash. It is also a fact that stolen property was not recovered from any of the respondents. It is also a fact that stolen property was not recovered from any of the respondents. ( 6 ) THE only point for consideration in appeal is whether the test identification parades conducted by P. W. 10 inside the court room as well as in the jail, were in accordance with law. If this point is answered in the affirmative, then necessarily conviction will follow, otherwise the finding of the learned Court below must have to be accepted. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 stated in his evidence that during commission of the dacoity he recognised respondent. Sanatan alias Pramod Kumar Pradhan. Subsequently in a test identification parade held inside the jail he identified him. If, as a matter of fact, the had identified respondent Sanatan alias Pramod Kumar Pradhan when the dacoity was committed, the test identification parade so far as he was concerned was neither necessary nor proper. Such an identification cannot be said to have been conducted in accordance with law. Further, he did not disclose how he had come to know appellant Sanatan alias Pramod Kumar Pradhan prior to the occurrence so as to identify him at once when the dacoity was being committed inside the house. The witness further stated that in the test identification parade conducted in the court room he identified respondents Bhimasen and Jatia alias Lingaraj. Conducting of test identification parades of persons inside court rooms was improper. Court rooms are public places can hardly be said to be places ideal and suitable for conducting test identification parades person in a case of grievous nature, the reason being that despite sufficient precaution taken by the investigating agency there still remains possibility of the identifying witnesses clinching glimpses of persons put to test identification. For the above reasons, it is quite unsafe to accept the evidence of P. W. 1 with regard to his identification of respondents Sanatan alias Pramod Kumar Pradhan, Bhimasen and Jatia alias Lingaraj. P. W. 2 stated in his evidence that in a test identification parade conducted inside the jail he identified respondent Ekan alias Ekarali Khan. The evidence of this witness cannot also be believed as per discussion of evidence in cross-examination of this witness which is to follow. P. W. 5 stated that she identified respondent Jatia alias Lingaraj in a test identification parade in the court room of the Magistrate. The evidence of this witness cannot also be believed as per discussion of evidence in cross-examination of this witness which is to follow. P. W. 5 stated that she identified respondent Jatia alias Lingaraj in a test identification parade in the court room of the Magistrate. For reasons already stated, I do not attach any importance to the identification conducted in a public place like the court room of a Magistrate because of possibility of a prior unofficial identification. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 5 with regard to identification of respondent Jatia alias Lingaraj cannot be given any credence. P. W. 7, another identifying witness, stated that in a test identification parade conducted by P. W. 10 inside his court room she identified respondents Bhimasen and Jatia alias Lingaraj. The reasons for disbelieving test identification conducted inside the court room having already been stated, the evidence of this witness with regard to identification cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) IN cross-examination, some of these identifying witnesses have revealed very interesting incidents leading to identification. P. W. 2 slated that prior to the identification, when he was in the hospital, the police had taken two persons and asked him to identify if any of them or both were amongst the dacoits. He identified respondent Ekan alias Ekarali Khan as one of the dacoits. He was frank enough to admit that because he had seen respondent Ekan alias Ekarali Khan earlier in the hospital, it was possible for him to identify him in the test identification parade. P. W. 5 admitted that it was possible for her to identify some of the culprits because prior to conducting of the test identification parade she had seen them in the inspection bungalow. Similarly P. W. 7 stated that she was brought to the police station where she found respondents Bhimasen and Jatia alias Lingaraj and so it was possible to identify them later in the test identification parade. She was further frank enough to say that these two persons had been taken near a well close to her house where she had seen them. It is worthy of note that respondents Hatia alias Basanta Kumar Jena and Bandhu alias Kushna Chandra Pradhan were not identified by any of these witnesses. She was further frank enough to say that these two persons had been taken near a well close to her house where she had seen them. It is worthy of note that respondents Hatia alias Basanta Kumar Jena and Bandhu alias Kushna Chandra Pradhan were not identified by any of these witnesses. ( 9 ) IN view of the above state of evidence of the identifying witnesses with regard to identification of the respondents and in the absence of any other incriminating material connecting them with the commission of dacoity in the house of P. W. 1, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in my view, was correct in recording an order of acquittal. On review of the evidence I am in agreement with him. I find that in a case of this nature, acquittal of the respondents based on sound and reasonable grounds cannot be interfered. ( 10 ) IN the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .