Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-5-1989 passed in Sessions Case No. 6/89 by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa convicting and sentencing both the appellants to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years each under Sec. 395 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in short is that in the night on 13-7-88 at about 12.00 OClock the informant Jagrup Safi (P.W. 2) was sleeping in his house when 8-10 miscreants entered in his house and one of them after flashing a torch on his face awoke him and asked whether he (informant) identified bun and on giving negative reply by the informant that miscreant asked him to remain quiet. Two miscreants entered the house and brought out a box on which the daughter-in-law of informant raised alarm and when the informant tried to get up the miscreant, who was standing on his side gave a blow to him by a stick. The daughter of informant, was also assaulted by the miscreants by means of stick and when neighbours after hearing liulla came running to the house of the informant the miscreants fled away taking away two boxes containing clothes and ornaments worth Rs. 250.00 . The fardbeyan(Ext. 1) of informant was recorded by I.O. On 14-7-88 at 11.00 a.m. at his village-Fulkaha. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 2) under Sec. 395 of I.P.C. was drawn against unknown. After investigation charge-sheet against both the appellants, who during the course of investigation were identified by informant and other witnesses in T.I. Parade, was submitted under Sec. 395 of I.P.C. After cognizance the case was committed to the Court, of Session and the appellants were put on trial after framing of charge under Sec. 395 of I.P.C. against them and after trial they were found guilty and have been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 3. The prosecution has examined five witnesses in this case. Sri P.M. Singh (P.W. 5) is the Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted the T.I. Parade. Damodar Singh (P.W. 4) is the I.O. Jagrup Safi (P.W. 2) is the informant. Baleshwar Mandal (P.W. 3) the nephew of informant and Bhubneshwar Mandal (P.W. 1) are the witness of occurrence. 4. 3. The prosecution has examined five witnesses in this case. Sri P.M. Singh (P.W. 5) is the Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted the T.I. Parade. Damodar Singh (P.W. 4) is the I.O. Jagrup Safi (P.W. 2) is the informant. Baleshwar Mandal (P.W. 3) the nephew of informant and Bhubneshwar Mandal (P.W. 1) are the witness of occurrence. 4. P.W. 2, informant, has said that on the date of occurrence, a dacoity was committed in his house by 9-10 dacoits and articles such as clothes, ornaments, etc. were taken away in the dacoity and his daughter was assaulted by the dacoits. He has stated that he had identified both the appellants in T.I. Parade but in his cross-examination, he has stated that the appellants were not among the dacoits and the appellants had assembled with other villagers after the dacoity and he identified them in T.I. Parade thinking that the appellants were the witnesses. Similarly, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 have stated that they had identified the appellants in T.I. Parade but in their cross-examination, they both have sated that appellants were known by name as well as by face to them from before occurrence and the appellants were not among the dacoits. P.W. 1 has stated that on hulla raised on the date of occurrence a number of persons had assembled at the house of informant in which these two appellants were also there and at that time these appellants had disclosed that they had come to a contractor as his guests and he identified both the appellants in T.I. Parade thinking that they were witnesses. P.W. 3 has also stated that he saw a mob which had assembled at the house of informant after dacoity and the appellants were known to him by face as well as by name before the occurrence. 5. From the evidence on record, it is clear that all the three witnesses to the occurrence, in their cross-examination have stated that appellants were not among the dacoits and they were members of a mob which had assembled at the house of informant after hearing hulla. on the date of occurrence and the appellants were well known to these wit* nesses by their names as well as their faces much before occurrence. on the date of occurrence and the appellants were well known to these wit* nesses by their names as well as their faces much before occurrence. The F.I.R. is against unknown and had these appellants taken part in the commission of dacoity their names must have figured in the F.I.R. in view of the admission of informant and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that the appellants were known to them from before. In spite of these facts, the Court below has hold the appellants guilty under Sec. 395 of I.P.C. and has convicted and sentenced them. From the reading of the judgment and order of the Court below, it appears that Court below is not satisfied with the concept of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in order to test the veracity of their evidence. In view of the Court below this process of cross-examination is hipper technical consideration of the law and "time has come to shun the traditional fundamentalist and non-activist approach while dealing with serious and grave offences like dacoity". Although the Court below has observed that the witnesses who are said to have seen the occurrence have given complete go-bye to the case of prosecution by their evidence in their cross-examination but still it has found the appellants guilty observing that "the statements contained in the cross-examination of these P.Ws. cannot be stretched too far and so far so as to grant acquittal to such crafty criminals". One fails to understand how the Court below has considered the appellant criminals without any proof of any offence committed by them. The Court below is wholly against the very concept of cross-examination of a prosecution witness and it has got scant regard to the established procedure and for provisions of law and it has got its own ideas and has acted according to that. I refrain myself from making any comment on the judgment and order of the Court below except stating that it is very unfortunate that by not following the established principles of law, the Court below compelled the appellants to take shelter of this Court against the perfunctory judgment of the Court below which has definitely caused the loss of time and money to the appellants apart from the mental anxiety and at the same time loss of time of this Court also. It is needless to say that such type of judgment and order cannot be upheld. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby set aside. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail-bonds.