S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment in Criminal appeal No. 104 of 2001 rendered by the principal Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessnions Judge, cuddapah in SC No. 411 of 2000. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the revision petitioner herein, who is resident of D. C. Satram. Railway Kodur, who is said to be notorious criminal and ex-convict, entered the house of PW1 D. Mohan Rao, through the main door and suddenly closed and bolted the door from inside and took out a dagger and threatened PW1 and his wife PW2 and directed them to hand over jewellery. Due to fear, PW1 handed over his gold ring studded with green stone weighing 10 grams and PW2 handed over her gold Bharathi chain weighing 32 grams and PW2 also handed over cash of Rs. 5,000/ -. It is further alleged that the culprit kept P. Ws. l and 2 in the backyard of their house and closed the door from outside and escaped with booty worth Rs. 20,000/ -. On 7-9-2000 at about 8. 30 a. m. P. W. 7 accompanied by p. W. 3 apprehended the accused and on interrogation he confessed about the offence and some of the gold property were recovered under the cover of mediator-nama. P. W. I identified the accused in the identification parade held by P. W. 8 and also identified the property. Hence the accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 384, 392 and 398-A IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 384, 392 and 398-A also and committed the case of sessions Court. The learned Assistant sessions Judge, Cuddapah framed charges under Sections 455, 392 and 342 IPC. The plea of the accused is one of denial. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions judge has recorded the finding of fact of committing the offence and proving charges against the accused under Sections 458, 392 and 398-A and Section 342 IPC. The accused has been sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for each of the offence under Sections 459 and 392 IPC read with Section 398 IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. The accused has been sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for each of the offence under Sections 459 and 392 IPC read with Section 398 IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. He also sentenced the accused to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- for the offence under Section 342 IPC, in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. M. O. 1 is ordered to be returned to P. W. I and M. Os. 2 and 3 are ordered to be returned to P. W. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2001 before the principal Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. The learned Principal Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. Thereupon, the accused invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 3 ) SRI J. Ugra Narasimham, learned legal aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused contends that no proper identification has been conducted in this case. It is also contended that the entire confessional statement has been marked which is not admissible and it is hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further contended that the reasoning given by the appellate Court is faulty and there is no proper appraisal of the evidence. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the Courts below on appraisal of the evidence and there is no need to interfere with the said findings. ( 5 ) ADVERTING to the said contentions, there is no such Section 398-A IPC. The police have filed the charge-sheet under section 398-A IPC. The learned Magistrate also took cognizance under Section 398-A ipc and the matter is committed to sessions. It is the Sessions Judge who refused to frame charge under Section 398-A IPC. It is a classic case where the wrong sections have been mentioned and the learned magistrate had not performed his judicial act properly, namely, taking cognizance. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the record discloses that entire confessional statement has been marked ignoring totally the provisions of Sections 24 to 27 of Evidence act. It is a classic case where the wrong sections have been mentioned and the learned magistrate had not performed his judicial act properly, namely, taking cognizance. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the record discloses that entire confessional statement has been marked ignoring totally the provisions of Sections 24 to 27 of Evidence act. It shows that the Assistant Sessions judge and the Principal Sessions Judge have not exercised their judicial discretion when entire statements are marked which are inadmissible evidence and placing his findings on the said inadmissible portion. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts unless there is perversity and there is no proper appreciation of the evidence. The appellate Court did not consider whether the entire portion of Ex. P-2 is admissible or not. It is a case where the inadmissible documents have been taken into consideration. The entire Ex. P-2 is inadmissible as it is hit by Section 27 of the evidence Act since it contains confessional statement made to a Police Officer. It is also clearly stated by the Apex Court that identification proceedings are only meant to facilitate the investigation and to verify the correctness of the investigation. In this case p. W. 8 conducted identification proceedings. Obviously the learned Magistrate has failed to mention the fact of selecting non-suspects of similar age group, complex, height and physical features as required under Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular orders 1990. This Court has provided guidelines to all the Magistrates about the conduction of identification parades and they were directed to observe the same. Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice and circular Orders read as follows: "identification Parades : In conducting identification parades of suspects, the magistrate shall observe the following rules: (I) (A) The Police should sent a requisition for holding identification parade by the magistrate as nominated by the Sessions judge. On such requisition, the Magistrate shall conduct the identification parade as expeditiously as possible. (B) Where bail application is pending for the release of the accused and on being informed so by the Police Officer, the magistrate shall as far as possible fix a date earlier to the date of arguments on the bail application and hold the identification parade. On such requisition, the Magistrate shall conduct the identification parade as expeditiously as possible. (B) Where bail application is pending for the release of the accused and on being informed so by the Police Officer, the magistrate shall as far as possible fix a date earlier to the date of arguments on the bail application and hold the identification parade. (II) (a) As far as possible, non-suspects selected for the parade shall be of the same age, height, general appearance and positioning life as that of the accused. Where a suspect wears any conspicuous garment, the magistrate conducting the parade shall, if possible, either arrange for similar wear to other or induce the suspected person to remove such garment. (B) The accused shall be allowed to select his own position and should be expressly asked if he has any objection to the persons present with him or the arrangements made. It is desirable to change the order in which the suspects have been placed at the parade during the interval between the departure of one witness and the arrival of another. (III) (a)The witnesses who have been summoned for the parade shall be kept out of the view of the parade and shall be prevented from seeing the prisoner before he is paraded with others. (B) Before a witness is called upon to identify the suspect, he should be asked whether he admits prior acquaintance with any suspect whom he proposes to identify. He shall also be asked to state the marks of identification by which he can identify the suspects. (C) Each witness shall be fetched by a peon separately. The witness shall be introduced one by one and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with witness, still waiting to see the persons paraded. (IV) Every circumstances connected with the identification including the act if any attributed to the person who is identified shall be carefully recorded by the officer conducting it, whether the accused or any other person is identified or not. Particularly any objection by any suspect to any point in the proceeding shall be recorded. " ( 6 ) IT is for the Magistrate to follow these rules framed under criminal rules of practice and circular orders scrupulously and he has to mention the necessary things in his report. Particularly any objection by any suspect to any point in the proceeding shall be recorded. " ( 6 ) IT is for the Magistrate to follow these rules framed under criminal rules of practice and circular orders scrupulously and he has to mention the necessary things in his report. If the Magistrate fails to follow or observe the said rules, his act loses its weight. He has to mention all those aspects in his report. Hence, it is clear that the identification parade is not conducted properly as per Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders and identification proceedings do not carry weight in this case and they cannot be considered. If there is no identification made before the police, it has to be seen whether any identification parade is made before the Court and the said version of P. Ws. l and 2 is believable. It is also mentioned in the judgment of the appellate Court at page no. 1 as under: 4. The sentence and law under which it was imposed in the lower Court 5. Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified the modification appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 495 IPC and 392 IPC read with Section 398 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment, for 7 years for each of the offence and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the offence i/d to suffers simple imprisonment for six months under each count. And he also found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for six moths and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- i/d simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant accused is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also to pay fine of Rs. 250/- i/d to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 342 ipc. Accused did not pay fine amount. Appeal is dismissed confirming the Calender and judgment passed by the lower Court in SC No. 411 of 2000 dated 26-4-2001. ( 7 ) IT is clear that the appellate Court making a note that the appellant was guilty under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month. ( 7 ) IT is clear that the appellate Court making a note that the appellant was guilty under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month. In the next column it is stated that the appeal is dismissed confirming the calendar and judgment passed by the lower Court. In fact, no charge is framed under Section 324 IPC by the Trial Court. It shows that there is no proper appraisal of the evidence. Obviously, it has led to miscarriage of justice in this case due to failure to decide about the admissibility of the document and mentioning wrong Sections in the judgment. Hence the judgment of the appellate Court is perverse and this Court is bound to interfere and make reappraisal of the same to avoid miscarriage of justice. I have already stated that the identification proceedings conducted by the Magistrate are not in accordance with Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders. Identification parade relating to properties is to be conducted only before the Court of the magistrate where the properties are lodged as seen from Rule 35 of Criminal Rules of practice, which reads as follows: "identification of property : (1) Identification parades of properties shall be held in the court of the Magistrate where the properties are lodged. (2) Each item of property shall be put up separately for the parade. It shall be mixed up with four or five similar objects. (3) Before calling upon the witnesses to identify the property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks of his property. Witnesses shall be called in one after the other and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with the witness not yet called in. " ( 8 ) IT is to be next seen whether p. Ws. l and 2 identified the accused before the Court. It is the duty of the Sessions judge to make a note in the deposition that p. Ws. l and 2 identified the accused. I have perused the depositions. It is no where stated that they identified the accused before the court. They spoke about the suspicion said to have been made during the time of investigation. It is the duty of the Sessions judge to make a note in the deposition that p. Ws. l and 2 identified the accused. I have perused the depositions. It is no where stated that they identified the accused before the court. They spoke about the suspicion said to have been made during the time of investigation. Important questions are not put by the prosecutor for eliciting correct answers. Whenever a person is being identified before the Court, the Court shall record the same in the depositions in all appellable cases for guidance of the appellate court. In the absence of recording the same, it cannot be said that the accused is identified before the Court also. Moreover, the property produced appears to be new one, which throws suspicion about the alleged recovery. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the fact that descriptive particulars are not mentioned in Ex. P-1 report. Hence, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the identity of the said property is also doubtful. ( 9 ) ADVERTING to the same, according to P. Ws. l and 2 the original gold articles are old and some of the articles appears to be new. The said version given out by P. W. 1 also throws doubt. In fact, there is no provision like Section 398-A IPC. The police have lodged the complaint under section 398-A IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under section 398-A IPC, which is not on the statute book. It shows that there is a possibility of fabricating the case. There is no proper investigation made in this case. The learned Magistrate has also not exercised his jurisdiction properly while taking cognizance of the offence. Inadmissible documents have been admitted. There was no proper conducting of identification proceedings. There is suspicion in this case about the alleged recovery of the case property. In view of the irregularities found it has not culminated into proof of offence. It is a fit case where the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Even the learned Principal Sessions Judge has blindly confirmed the judgment of the lower court without applying his mind. This can be culled out from the fact that he has mentioned the offence under Section 324 ipc. It is a fit case where the accused is entitled to be given benefit of doubt. Even the learned Principal Sessions Judge has blindly confirmed the judgment of the lower court without applying his mind. This can be culled out from the fact that he has mentioned the offence under Section 324 ipc. In that view of the matter, the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are set aside. The accused is acquitted for the respective charges after giving benefit of doubt. ( 10 ) THE criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed.