Judgment : ( 1 ) HEARD both the parties. ( 2 ) THE above revision is directed against the order of the learned Assistant sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur dated 17-11-1994 made in CA. No. 76 of 1994 on the file of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge. Srivilliputhur, confirming the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-for each accused imposed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur in s. C. No. 46 of 1991 for an offence punishable under Section 3941. P. C. read with section 397 I. P. C. , relating to an occurrence said to have taken place on 19-12-89 at 10. 30 A. M. ( 3 ) THE petitioners herein, namely, Konavayan alias Chinnasamy and guruvaiya were facing trial along with one Udayasurian and Balakrishnan for an offence punishable under Section 3941. P. C. read with Section 3971. P. C. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution was that, at 10. 30 P. M. on 19-12-89, when p. W. I, was going from Rajapalayam to Vasundevanallur in TVS 50, the petitioners, along with one Udayasurian and Balakrishnan, stopped P. W. I by holding a rope across the road, voluntarily caused injury on P. W. 1 and committed robbery by taking away one golden ring, one wrist watch rs. 1500/- and Rs. 100/- currency notes and one Rs. 50/- currency note. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined as P. W. I to p. W. 9. P. W. I was the victim under the said robbery; P. W. 2 was the learned judicial Magistrate No. 1, Srivilliputhur who conducted the identification parade; P. W. 3 was the Medical Officer who certified the injury caused on P. W. 1 during the commission of the offence; P. W. 4 was the person, who, when crossing the place of occurrence, found the victim and took him to the police station of P. W. 8, who was the investigating officer; P. W. 5 was the driver who took him to the hospital in the vehicle on the next day and P. W. 6 is the brother-in-law of P. W. I who deposed that he gave a sum of Rs. 1,500/-to P. W. I which was robbed during the commission of the offence. 1,500/-to P. W. I which was robbed during the commission of the offence. ( 6 ) THE prosecution also produced material objects, namely, M. O. 1 to M. O. 9 to corraborate the evidence of P. W. I M. O. I was the gold ring; M. O. 2 was the wrist watch; M. O. 3 was the aruval used to cause injury to P. W. I; M. O. 4 was the rope used to stop the TVS 50 by P. W. 1 M. O. 5 the shirt worn by P. W. 1;m. O. 6 was the two Rs. 100/- currency notes recovered from Udayasurian; M. O. 7 was one rs. 100/-currency notes; M. O. 8 was the three Rs. 100/-currency notes recovered from Balakrishnan and M. O. 9 was the three Rs. 100/-notes recovered from Guruvaiya, namely, the second petitioner herein. ( 7 ) THE prosecution also filed Exhibits P1 to P16 documentary evidences. ( 8 ) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge, by an order dated 28. 4. 94, after the perusal of the evidence of P. W. I to P. W. 9 in the light of Exhibits P-1 to P-16 and material Objects M. O. I to M. O. 9 held that the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, namely, Konavayan alias Chinnasamy and Guruvaiya and one other accused, namely Udayasurian, who had committed offence under Section 394, I. P. C. read with 397, I. P. C. , convicted them with a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and with a fine of Rs. 100/- each as the remaining one accused, namely Balakrishnan died during the trial. Aggrieved by the conviction dated 28-4-94, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions judge, Srivilliputhur in C. A. No. 76 of 1994, while the other accused, namely udyasurian preferred an appeal in CA. No. 27 of 1994. The learned Sessions judge, Srivilliputhur in his order dated 17-11-94 in C. A. Nos. 76 and 77 and 1994, confirmed the conviction, finding no reason to interfere. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the above order of confirmation of the conviction and sentence dated 17-11-94 in C. A. No. 76 of 1994, the petitioners, namely, konavayan alias Chinnasamy and Guruvaiya alone have preferred the above revision petition. ( 10 ) MR. 76 and 77 and 1994, confirmed the conviction, finding no reason to interfere. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the above order of confirmation of the conviction and sentence dated 17-11-94 in C. A. No. 76 of 1994, the petitioners, namely, konavayan alias Chinnasamy and Guruvaiya alone have preferred the above revision petition. ( 10 ) MR. T. SUDANTHIRAM, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that, despite the discrepancies apparent on the face of the record in the deposition of the prosecution witness and the order of the learned assistant Sessions Judge in S. C. No. 46 of 1997, as well as in the certified copy of the order in C. A. No. 76 of 1994 and in the printed judgment in C. A. No. 76 of 1994 as to the rank of the accused, the order of conviction is illegal on the following legal grounds, namely. (i) the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts, as admittedly, they failed to satisfy the principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court relating to the identification of the accused; (ii) When there was no recovery from the first petitioner, namely konavayan alias Chinnasamy who was not even subjected to the identification parade, has to be acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. (iii) The mere recovery of currency notes, namely M. O. 9 series from the second petitioner Guruvaiya alone will not hold conviction safe, as there is no evidence on record that P. W. 6, who is the brother-in-law, of p. W. I, gave the said currency notes to P. W. I and the same was robbed in the said occurrence. ( 11 ) MR. T. SUDANTHIRAM learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention that among the four accused said to have committed the offence, three accused namely, Balakrishnan, Udayasurian and Guruvaiya, leaving konavayan alias Chinnasamy were produced before P. W. 2 for the identification parade. Out of the said three accused only two were identified, namely Balakrishnan and Udayasurian; but Balakrishnan died even before the trial and Guruvaiya, who was not identified in the identification parade, was identified only in the Court. ( 12 ) MR. Out of the said three accused only two were identified, namely Balakrishnan and Udayasurian; but Balakrishnan died even before the trial and Guruvaiya, who was not identified in the identification parade, was identified only in the Court. ( 12 ) MR. Sudanthiram further contends when the prosecution fails to identify the accused at the first instance, namely, in the identification parade, the identification of the accused before the Court will not substitute the requirement of identifying the accused in the identification parade. He therefore, contends that the identification in the Court will not justify the conviction as safe. ( 13 ) MR. SUDANTHIRAM therefore contends that since the second petitioner guruvaiya, who could not be identified by P. W. I before P. W. 2 during the identification parade, his identification before the Court could not be accepted, even though it is alleged that M. O. 9 series were recovered from him. ( 14 ) MR. sudanthiram further contends that the case of the first petitioner, namely Konavayan alias Chinnasamy stands in a better footing as he was not even produced before the identification parade. He questions the reasons for not producing the first petitioner by the prosecution before the identification parade and also contends that the identification of Konavayan alias chinnasamy in the Court cannot, in any event, be considered as valid in law. That apart, nothing was recovered from the first petitioner namely Konavayan alias Chinnasamy. In the absence of proper and valid identification, as well as in the absence of any recovery, whatever materials said to have been robbed, the conviction of the first petitioner is totally illegal and contrary to law. ( 15 ) IN support of the above contentions, Mr. Sudanthiram the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the following decisions:1. Gurgoan vs. State ofmadhya Pradesh 2. Mohamed Abdul Hafeez vs. State of Andhm Pradesh 3. Chandrsekaran alias Chandran vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police 4. ( 15 ) IN support of the above contentions, Mr. Sudanthiram the learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the following decisions:1. Gurgoan vs. State ofmadhya Pradesh 2. Mohamed Abdul Hafeez vs. State of Andhm Pradesh 3. Chandrsekaran alias Chandran vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police 4. Brij Mohan and others vs. State of Rajasthan ( 16 ) PER Contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that in the case of unknown offenders, the possibility of identification is remote, the mere non-identification of the second petitioner, namely, Guruvaiya in the identification parade will not render the case of the prosecution unsafe as P. W. 1 has rightly identified the second petitioner in the Court; particularly when the prosecution claims that M. O. 9 series, namely three Rs. 100/- currency notes which were admittedly part and parcel of properties robbed by the accused were recovered from Guruvaiya, the second petitioner, while the other materials namely, gold ring and wrist watch were rightly recovered from the other accused. When the property robbed itself are currency notes, nothing else could be recovered from the accused, as the remaining properties were recovered from the other accused. ( 17 ) WITH regard to the case of the first petitioner, viz. , Konavayan alias chinnasamy, an argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first petitioner was not produced before the identification parade, but he was identified only when he was produced before the Court and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. ( 18 ) I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. ( 19 ) THERE is no dispute as to the facts that the first petitioner, namely, konavayan alias Chinnasamy was not produced before the identification parade at all; he was identified at the first instance only in the Court by P. W. I, and nothing was recovered from him. In the case of the second petitioner, namely, Guruvaiya, even though he was produced in the identification parade, he was not identified at all by P. W. I in the presence of P. W. 2, but was only identified in the Court. The only property recovered from him was Rs. 300/- (3 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each), marked as M. O. 9. The only property recovered from him was Rs. 300/- (3 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each), marked as M. O. 9. ( 20 ) I do not see any good and sufficient reason for not producing Konavayan alias Chinnasamy in the identification parade at all, even though the investigating agency thought it fit to hold an identification parade as the case is one against the unknown offenders. ( 21 ) IT is well settled in law that in the case of unknown offenders, the identification parade was held fit and necessary to identify the accused at the earliest possible time, as the memory of the witness would have been fresh at the earliest time. It is only in consideration of such necessity, the Apex Court has categorically held that it will not be safe to convict the accused merely on the basis of identifying for the first time in the Court. Substantive evidence regarding the identification given by the witness during the trial would be of little or no evidential value in the absence of prior test of identification parade. I In other words, the absence of test identification parade goes to the root of the matter and shakes the entire prosecution case, making it baseless. ( 22 ) ONLY in the light of the above well-settled principles of law as laid down in a chain of decisions by the Apex Court, this Court, in Chandrasekaran alias chandran vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police (3 supra) held as follows:"whatever it might be, in respect of this night occurrence when the prosecution witnesses could have had only a fleeting glance of the accused when they must have been in absolute terror, their identification in Court for the first time could have no significance whatsoever. " ( 23 ) THE Apex Court, on Gurgoan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1 supra), while acquiring the accused for want of proper identification, has observed as follows:-"the conviction of the appellant, Bhure Khan, rests purely on recovery of a torch and currency notes of the value of Rs. 235/-found with him. The identification of these two articles in not satisfactorily proved as forming part of the corpus delicti Chakradhar Singh failed to identify Bhure Khan at either of the two identification parades and his identification in Court will not help the prosecution. 235/-found with him. The identification of these two articles in not satisfactorily proved as forming part of the corpus delicti Chakradhar Singh failed to identify Bhure Khan at either of the two identification parades and his identification in Court will not help the prosecution. So far as the torch is concerned it is a very common article and no particular mark appearing thereon has been indicated as enabling Chakradhar Singh to identify it as belonging to him. As regards the currency notes it is true that these have not been claimed, by Bhure Khan as his money but till these notes are established to be the subject matter of the dacoity which occurred at Chakradhar Singhs place the appellant is not called upon to explain its possession. For these reasons it would be difficult to maintain the conviction of Bhure Khan. The appeal is therefore allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 397,1. P. C. and 395,1. P. C. ". ( 24 ) AGAIN in Mohamed Abdul Hafeez vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (3 supra), the apex Court has held as follows:"ordinarily after the accused were arrested the test identification parade should have been held. It is admitted that no such identification parade was held. It is only when the victim Satyanarayana came to give evidence in the Court and four accused were sitting in the Court that he identified them as the miscreants. Incident occurred on December 9,1978. Evidence of Satyanarayana was recorded in the Court on April 21,1979. There was thus a lapse of more than four months during which period it is not possible to believe that victim Satyanarayana had no occasion to see the accused. Such identification in the circumstances of the case would hardly furnish any evidence against the present appellant. " ( 25 ) IF the facts and circumstances of the present case is tested with by the said legal parameters laid down by. the Apex Court, as well as this Court in the decisions referred to above, I am satisfied that the contention of Mr. " ( 25 ) IF the facts and circumstances of the present case is tested with by the said legal parameters laid down by. the Apex Court, as well as this Court in the decisions referred to above, I am satisfied that the contention of Mr. T. Sundanthiram, learned Counsel for the petitioner, deserves consideration and therefore, I am obliged to hold that the conviction of the first petitioner who was not even produced before the identification parade, but was identified for the first time in the Court, from whom, nothing was recovered, is totally erroneous and illegal, as he is entitled for the benefit of doubt for want of proper identification. ( 26 ) IN the case of the second petitioner, namely, Guruvaiya, of course, I am impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the property involved in the robbery were only a golden ring, a wrist watch and currency notes, of which the golden ring was recovered from udayasurian and wrist watch was recovered from Balakrishnan, respectively, and what remains were only the currency notes, which were rightly recovered from Guruvaiya and marked as M. O. 9 series. In a case of robbery said to have been committed by unknown offenders, the prosecution could not expected to prove more than what has been done in the case. But still it cannot be overlooked that the prosecution had failed to corraborate that these currency notes alone were handed over by P. W. 6, namely, the brother-in-law of P. W. 1 and they were alone possessed by P. W. I at the time of robbery. The absence of such corraboration renders the conviction unsafe and therefore, the mere recovery of the three currency notes, namely, M. O. 9 series from Guruvaiya, by itself, cannot be sufficient to prove the offence against the second petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for this reason I am obliged to interfere with the conviction imposed on the second petitioner also, as ordered by the Courts below. ( 27 ) THEREFORE, the orders of conviction under Section 394,i. P. C. read with section 397, I. P. C. imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, srivilliputhur dated 17-11-94 made in CA. No. 76 of 1994, confirming the sentence imposed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur in s. C. No. 46 of 1991, are held illegal. ( 27 ) THEREFORE, the orders of conviction under Section 394,i. P. C. read with section 397, I. P. C. imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, srivilliputhur dated 17-11-94 made in CA. No. 76 of 1994, confirming the sentence imposed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur in s. C. No. 46 of 1991, are held illegal. ( 28 ) IN the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Consequently, the bonds executed by the petitioners shall stand cancelled.