JUDGMENT -Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal revision application is filed by the State, being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd April, 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 817 of 1991. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2.It appears that offence was registered as C.R. No. 299/90 at Ghatkopar Police Station against the accused under sections 307, 143 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. After committal procedure was over, the said C.R. was converted into Sessions Case No. 817/91, and thereafter, application for discharge under section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code was made. 3.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, after perusing the papers, and after hearing both the sides, was pleased to discharge original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 4.I have heard Mrs. Jyoti Pawar, learned A.P.P appearing for the State. It appears that Ms. D.M. Shah was appointed to represent the respondent/accused Nos. 2 and 3, but she is not present. I have also perused the record. 5.In my opinion, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity. It appears that out of statements of four witnesses and three panchanamas, the two panchanamas, one for the scene of offence and the other for taking charge of the clothes of the injured, did not have any relevance to the fixing of the identity of the assailants. The statement of the person who had lodged First Information Report, did not mention any name and described "three persons". The statement of one of the witnesses, Anwarali, did not refer to the incident at all. His statement only refers to the shifting of the injured to the hospital from the garage, where the incident had allegedly occurred. The statement of Joginder Pal and Balwinder (injured), name the assailants. Joginder claims to have run away after assault of the assailants was in progress on Balwinder. He has referred that the injured Balwinder used to have a chat under the Jamun tree, next to his garage with Chunna Raju, Anil, Afzal, Babu, Mahavir and Chandu, and consequently, he knew them. The injured Balwinder, however, did not refer to his chat near the garage, but claimed that he had broken his friendship with them one year back. He has referred that the injured Balwinder used to have a chat under the Jamun tree, next to his garage with Chunna Raju, Anil, Afzal, Babu, Mahavir and Chandu, and consequently, he knew them. The injured Balwinder, however, did not refer to his chat near the garage, but claimed that he had broken his friendship with them one year back. In the names of the persons so known to him he did not include the name of Mahavir and Babu (Accused Nos 1 and 2) or their addresses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made an observation that naming such persons, by itself, would not be a sufficient material to fix the identity, when the names are such, that the persons of that name could be numerous, appears to be reasonable. Mentioning of the name, by itself, does not fix the identity of the individual and reference to the name alone cannot be considered as a material against the accused. 6.It appears that after arresting the accused, no identification parade was held by the Investigating Officer. The person namely, Mohan, who had lodged the First Information Report, did not claim to have seen the incident. 7.After perusing the above mentioned material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that because of these lacunas on the part of the prosecution, it was not possible to frame the charge against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. He has observed that the material was of such a nature that there was no possibility of bringing conviction in the matter. By applying this test, he discharged accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, by observing that with respect to accused Nos. 3 and 5, there was some material, which was sufficient to frame charge against them. 8.In my opinion, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the following order: Criminal Revision Application No. 152 of 1992 is dismissed. Rule discharged. Application dismissed. -----