JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C. J.—This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, on October 4, 1996, in Criminal Case No. 67-111/1990. By the said order the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act with which they were charged. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on December 9, 1989, at about 9.30 a.m. at Kandwal, accused persons were illegally removing forest produce Kalu Tuli without prior permission of forest authorities. They were caught red-handed while carrying the forest produce in bags in Truck No. HPK 733 without valid pass or permit. Since the accused persons committed the aforesaid offences, proceedings were initiated against them. After usual investigation, they were charged for committing the above offences. The case of the accused persons was of a total denial. 3. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence on record, held that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons illicitly removed forest produce Kali Tuli and committed the offences with which they were charged. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate acquitted all of them. The said order is challenged in the present appeal by the State. 4. I have heard Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the appellant, Mr. B.K. Sood, learned Counsel for accused-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri R.K. Gautam, learned Counsel for accused respondent No.3. 5. It was contended on behalf of the State that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Magistrate was illegal and unlawful. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was clearly established that the accused were illicitly removing forest produce and they were caught red-handed while taking away forest produce in a truck. The said fact was established by the prosecution by examining material witnesses. It was not even the case of accused that they were having any pass or permit and, thus they had committed the offences with which they were charged. The learned Magistrate, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, committed an error of law in acquitting the accused, inter alia, on the grounds that Surinder Kumar, Forest Guard, was not examined or that no identification parade was held. The learned Magistrate, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, committed an error of law in acquitting the accused, inter alia, on the grounds that Surinder Kumar, Forest Guard, was not examined or that no identification parade was held. It was urged that when accused were caught red-handed and it was established from the prosecution evidence, including the evidence of PW-12 Mohinder Singh, who was cleaner in the truck, that they had committed offences. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court, hence, deserves interference. 6. On the other hand, it was argued by Mr. Sood on behalf of respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 that Forest Guard, Surinder Kumar, who was the first person to receive information and on the basis of that information investigation proceeded, was the most material witness. He was, however, not examined by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for defence, it was fatal to the prosecution. The said fact weighed with the trial Court and an order of acquittal was recorded by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, independent witnesses were available as it was in the evidence that may persons were passing through the arek but none of them was examined. Further, the truck was got unloaded by labourers and, yet, none of the labourers was examined by the prosecution. Regarding PW-1, Sudarshan Kumar, Range Officer, it was submitted that he had no personal knowledge. PW-12, Mohinder Singh, Clearner, who had identified the accused in Court had never seen any of the accused earlier. Even during his examination-in-chief in the Court, he identified Surinder accused No. 1 as Jatinder, accused No. 2, as observed by the learned Magistrate himself. It was not the case of PW-12, that in past, he had an occasion to see any of the accused. Reliance on evidence of such a witness would be hazardous, and that too, by reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. A grievance was also made that though samples were taken of the forest produce, said to have been seized, nothing was stated by any of the prosecution witnesses as to what had happened to the said forest produce. They were also not produced in Court. No evidence of seizure of material was also placed on the record. A grievance was also made that though samples were taken of the forest produce, said to have been seized, nothing was stated by any of the prosecution witnesses as to what had happened to the said forest produce. They were also not produced in Court. No evidence of seizure of material was also placed on the record. Though the incident was said to have taken place at 9.30 a.m., FIR was lodged at 6.30 p.m. and then there was considerable delay in filing a complaint. On all these grounds, if the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused, it cannot be said that such a view could not have been taken. On all these grounds, it was prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Gautam, learned Counsel for accused No. 3 supported the arguments advanced by Mr. Sood, learned Counsel for accused-Nos. 1 and 2, 8. In my opinion, it cannot be said that by acquitting the accused, the learned Magistrate has committed any error of fact or of law which requires interference. In my view, the submission of the learned Counsel for the defence that it was necessary for the prosecution to examine Surinder Kumar, Forest Guard, is well-founded. In fact, for unfolding the prosecution case, he was the most material witness. But he was, not examined. My attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the State that he was not examined in view of endorsement made by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on April 12, 1994, in which it was stated that the witness was given up "being unnecessary and of same sequence”. Looking to the prosecution case, however, it was Surinder Kumar who first received the information and thereafter the wheels of prosecution were moved. His evidence was, therefore, absolutely necessary to connect the accused with the crime. All the witnesses have stated that it was on the basis of information received by Surinder Kumar and disclosed by him to higher officers that the proceedings were initiated. Therefore, for unfolding the prosecution story, his examination was essential. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was right in observing that without any cogent ground or valid reason, the said witness was not examined by the prosecution. 9. Along with Surinder Kumar, PW-2 Gian Chand was there. Therefore, for unfolding the prosecution story, his examination was essential. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was right in observing that without any cogent ground or valid reason, the said witness was not examined by the prosecution. 9. Along with Surinder Kumar, PW-2 Gian Chand was there. Unfortunately, for the prosecution, however, PW-2 Gian Chand did not wholly support the case of the prosecution and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted by the Court, to put questions which can be put in cross-examination of a witness. Thus, two persons, who were initially informed about illicit removal of forest produce, could not help the prosecution, Surinder Kumar, Forest Guard because he was not examined by the prosecution, and PW-2, Gian Chand, because he did not stick to the prosecution version. In these circumstances, in my view, the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the incident and so called seizure of forest produce could not connect the accused with the crime. 10. Even with regard to identification of accused, the case of the prosecution was doubtful. No identification parade was held. True it is, that in all cases it is not incumbent on the part of the prosecution to hold identification parade. But then, in the light of the facts and circumstances and evidence before the Court, such question has to be decided. In the instant case, it is not even asserted by prosecution witnesses that they were knowing accused or that they had seen them earlier. The substantive evidence of only one witness is relevant and material for identification and he was PW-12, Mohinder Singh-Cleaner. He claims to have identified the accused persons but only in the Court. But as observed by the learned Magistrate himself, he had identified an accused to be Jatinder whereas, in fact, he was Surinder. It may be stated that in all, there were three accused before the trial court Surinder Kumar, accused No. 1, Jatinder Kumar, accused No. 2 and Rakesh Kumar, accused No. 3, driver of the truck. Now if a person, who claims to have identified accused persons in court for the first time, and there also, he commits a mistake and the learned Magistrate in these circumstances, acquitted them observing that in such circumstances, holding of identification parade was necessary, can it be said that by holding so, he has committed any error. In my opinion, no. In my opinion, no. The learned Magistrate, in this connection, rightly relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kanan and others v. State of Kerala (AIR 1979 SC 1127). In Kanan and others, their Lordships observed that where a witness identifies an accused, in Court for the first time, it would be unsafe to rely on his evidence. It was observed by the Apex Court: “.....It is well settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.L parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I. parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.L parade is held then it will he wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in court" (Emphasis supplied) 11. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanan and others, squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. There is an additional factor in the instant case, and it is, that here, while identifying the accused in Court, the witness had committed an error. He identified accused No. 2 as accused No. 1. 12. On all these grounds, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused for the offences with which they were charged. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Bail bonds stand concelled. Appeal dismissed.