B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore whereby he has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaleswar convicting the accused-petitioner under section 392, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, shortly stated, is that in the night of 10111th November, 1986 at about 1 a. m. the informant Judhistir Jena (P. W. 1) went out of his house to pass urine and after returning there from slept on his cot. Before he went into deep sleep, his daughter Anita (not examined) went out side for the purpose of urination holding a DIBRI. No sooner she went out side, the accused-petitioner along with two others by name Dula alias Biswanath alias Bhagirathi Das and Jatia alias Kamal Lochan Behera attacked her for which she raised hue and cry and hearing her scream when P. W. 1 came out, there was tussle between him and the petitioner and his coaccused and in course of the tussle one of the culprits tied P. W. 1 with his napkin and made him to sit in a room. While the accused petitioner was guarding P. W. 1, his two other co-accuseds went inside and brought out some valuables. In the meantime, Anita went to the up stair and informed the incident to Puma Chandra Mahalik (not examined) who was sleeping there and the later, in his turn, went inside the Basti to call the villagers. But before the villagers could arrive, the accused petitioner and his two co-accused took to their heels carrying the stolen articles. In F. I. R. containing the above facts (Ext. 1) having been lodged, investigation commenced. In course of the investigation a silver necklace was seized from one of the co-accused of the petitioner. Test identification parades were made for identification of the petitioner and his two co-accused and after competition of investigation charge-sheet having been placed, all the three accused persons faced trial. ( 3 ) THE defence was one of denial. In course of the investigation a silver necklace was seized from one of the co-accused of the petitioner. Test identification parades were made for identification of the petitioner and his two co-accused and after competition of investigation charge-sheet having been placed, all the three accused persons faced trial. ( 3 ) THE defence was one of denial. ( 4 ) AT the trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses out of whom P. W. 1 is the informant; P. W. 2 and 4 are the Judicial Magistrates of Jaleswar who conducted the test identification parades in respect of the three accused; P. W. 3 is a witness to the seizure; P. W. 5 is the wife of P. W. 1 and P. W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. On a consideration of the evidence of all these witness, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted the petitioner as well as his two co-accused under section 392, I. P. C. and awarded similar sentence to the two co-accused of the petitioner as was awarded to the petitioner, as stated above. The appeal filed by the petitioner having been dismissed, he has come up with this revision. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. Sahoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the test identification parade in respect of the petitioner suffers from several infirmities and as such, the same does not carry any evidentiary value. This fact having not been taken into consideration by the appellate court, its ultimate conclusion finding the accused guilty suffers from non-consideration of important materials and as such, the same is not maintainable in law. His second contention is that the substantive evidence of P. W. 1 in court could not have been acted upon by the appellate court because the witness was examined about a year after the alleged occurrence and he had not given any. special identification mark or physical features of the petitioner in the F. I. R. or before the Magistrate holding the test identification parade. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, suppose the impugned order. special identification mark or physical features of the petitioner in the F. I. R. or before the Magistrate holding the test identification parade. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, suppose the impugned order. ( 6 ) IT is too well known that in a case of the present type although the evidence of a witness in court is substantive in nature, the same cannot be relied upon if he has been examined long after the alleged occurrence, in the absence of his earlier identification of the suspect in a test identification parade. In this case, the only evidence on which the appellate court has placed reliance to maintain the conviction of the petitioner is that of P. W 1 and 5. It is seen that P. W. 5 has been examined about a year after the alleged occurrence and she had not been put as an identifying witness in the test identification parade. In that view of the matter, the evidence off, W. 5 could not have been relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to convict the petitioner. Before dealing with the substantive evidence of P. W. 1, let me examine what evidentiary value can be attached to the test identification parade in which P. W. 1 allegedly identified the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 2. 2. 1987 and the test identification parade in respect of him was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (P. W. 2) on 4. 3. 1987 As stated earlier, the alleged occurrence having taken place in the night of 10th / 11th November, 1986, the test identification parade was held about two and half months after the alleged occurrence and more than one month after the date of arrest. No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the prosecution as to why there was such delay in holding the test identification parade after the arrest of the petitioner. With these facts, a finding as to the evidentiary value of the test identification parade has to be recorded. In the case of Satrughna alias Satrughna Panda and others v. State of Orissa, the test identification parade in respect of one appellant had been held more than 15 days after his arrest and the same in respect of other two appellants had been held almost a month after their - arrest. In the case of Satrughna alias Satrughna Panda and others v. State of Orissa, the test identification parade in respect of one appellant had been held more than 15 days after his arrest and the same in respect of other two appellants had been held almost a month after their - arrest. The prosecution had not advanced any reason for not holding the test identification parade promptly with such facts, the apex Court declined to give any evidentiary value to the test identification parade with the following observation: Where the fate of the accused persons hangs solely on the identification by the witness who claims to have seen them almost 1/2 months prior to the date of identification, it is the duty of the prosecution to state why the identification parade could not be arranged immediately after the arrest of the accused and without loss of time. Unless there is good reason for the delay, the value regarding the evidence of identification gets adversely affected. This dilution of the evidentiary value of identification by witnesses who claim to have seen the accused at night almost 1 Y2 months back but who did not in their statements before the police or in the First Information Report reveal any special features for identification is a matter, which weighs against the prosecution. It must be remembered that the accused persons are required to be produced before the Court latest within 15 days of their arrest and, therefore, it would be reasonable to infer that they were so produced. There is nothing on the record to show that the prosecution had taken care to ensure that their identity was not revealed when they were taken to Court and produced as required by law. ( 7 ) APPLYING the above test as laid down by the Supreme Court, when there was delay of more than a month in holding the test identification parade and no, reason has been ascribed by the prosecution for such delay, it cannot be said that the test identification parade has any evidentiary value particularly when, as indicated earlier, P. W. 1 had not given the special identification mark or the physical features of the petitioner either in the first information report or in his statement before the Magistrate holding the test identification parade. These facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Addi. These facts have not been taken into consideration by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge for which his conclusion that the substantive evidence of P. W. 1 in court has been duly corroborated by his earlier identification in the test identification parade has become erroneous. ( 8 ) COMING to the substantive evidence of P. W. 1 in Court, it is seen that although he has identified the petitioner as one of the culprits who committed robbery in his house, it is not safe to rely on his testimony for the reasons to follow. Although P. W. 1 asserted in his examination-inchief that he went outside carrying a burning lantern with him, in his cross-examination he candidly admitted that he had not come out of his room with the lantern. So, there was no occasion for him to identify the petitioner with the light of the lantern. He has seen to have asserted that the petitioner, while guarding him was focusing torch-light on him and was busy in going out and coming in. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has believed the identification of the petitioner by this witness in Court because according to him, P. W. 1 could have identified him by the light of the lantern. According to P. W. 1, the lantern was burning in the middle room of his house but after he was tied, he was made to sit in another room used by his wife as her bed-room. In view of such evidence, it can well be said that the burning lantern was not there where P. W. 1 was made to sit after being tied. This fact was not taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for which his conclusion that P. W. 1 was in a position to observe the petitioner for long time with the light of the lantern has become erroneous. It is strenuously urged by the learned Addi. Govt. Advocate that since the petitioner was focusing the torch-light on P. W. 1 while guarding him, there was possibility of P. W. 1 identifying the petitioner. 1 am unable to agree with such contention because a person at whom light is focused cannot identify the person focusing the torch-light. It is strenuously urged by the learned Addi. Govt. Advocate that since the petitioner was focusing the torch-light on P. W. 1 while guarding him, there was possibility of P. W. 1 identifying the petitioner. 1 am unable to agree with such contention because a person at whom light is focused cannot identify the person focusing the torch-light. This view of mine finds support from the case of Bunni Singh and others v. State of Bihar, where it was held: It is obvious and natural that behind a lit torch darkness prevails binding the identity of the torch bearer and persons situated close In the case of Wakil Singh and others v. State of Bihar, the test identification parade was held about three and half months after the dacoity was committed in a house at night and it was observed by the Supreme Court that in view of such a long lapse of time it is not possible for any human being to remember, the features of the accused and he is, therefore, very likely to commit mistakes. It was further observed that in these circumstances, unless the evidence is absolutely clear, it would be unsafe to convict an accused for such a serious offence on the testimony of a single witness. In this case, as already indicated earlier, the identification of the petitioner by P. W. 1 in court having taken place a year after the alleged occurrence, it would not be safe to rely on such substantive evidence of identification particularly when P. W. 1 did not give the special mark of identification or and the physical features of the petitioner either in the F. I. R. or before the Magistrate conducting the test identification parade. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, I hold that neither the substantive evidence of identification of the petitioner by P. W. 1 can be safely acted upon nor his identification in the test identification parade. That being so, the impugned judgment maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are here by set aside and he is acquired. The bail-bond filed by him stands cancelled. Revision allowed. .