BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 01. 06. 2006 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's Criminal Appeal no. 17/2006 which, in turn, was preferred against the judgment and / or order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 394 IPC and a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of rs. 1,000/- was imposed upon him. ( 2 ) THE facts as indicated in the impugned order read as under:- "2. The facts of the present criminal appeal are that on 08. 07. 2004 at about 10. 15 p. m. appellant / convict alongwith his associates looted maruti car no: DL 6 C E 8309 from Vivek Khanna after pushing him. On being informed police reached the spot and recorded statement of Vivek Khanna on the basis of which a case bearing FIR No. :280/04 under section 392/34 IPC was registered. During the investigation, appellant / convict with his associates. Vinod, Bittoo and Pawan was arrested in this case. At the stage of framing of charge, accused persons Bittoo and pawan were discharged and trial against vinod and Khurvesh proceeded with as they pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. After conclusion of trial, Id. trial court acquitted Vinod while accused Khuresh, present appellant / convict was held guilty under section 394 IPC only and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and also to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- I/d to further undergo SI for ten days and present criminal appeal is preferred against this impugned judgment and orders on sentence. " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the point that the petitioner was not properly identified and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submitted that PW-2 [vivek Khanna] had admitted in his cross-examination that the photograph of the petitioner was shown to him before his Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. He also submitted that the other material witness, PW-3 [virender Kumar] has also admitted that his eye-sight was weak for close distances. He submitted that PW-2 [vivek Khanna] had admitted in his cross-examination that the photograph of the petitioner was shown to him before his Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. He also submitted that the other material witness, PW-3 [virender Kumar] has also admitted that his eye-sight was weak for close distances. It is on the basis of these submissions that the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the conviction of the petitioner be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not properly identified. He placed before this court a decision of the supreme Court in the case of Ravindra @ ravi Bansi Gohar v. State of Maharashtra: 1998 [2] JCC [sc] 107 wherein it was clearly indicated that showing of photographs prior to TIP would negate the very purpose and object of identifying the accused in a TIP and, therefore, would render the identification of the accused in such circumstances useless. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on this decision to submit that pw-2 [vivek Khanna] was shown the photographs of the petitioner prior to the TIP being conducted and, therefore, the identification of the petitioner in the TIP proceedings was rendered useless and, consequently, so too the conviction. ( 5 ) I notice that in the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that it would not make a difference to the case as to whether the photograph of the accused was shown in the police station or not inasmuch as police stations have dossiers of the bad elements and if the victim has identified one of them as being the culprit, it would not make any difference nor would it nullify the TIP of the accused. Although I am not in agreement with this view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, particularly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra @ Ravi (supra), this would not make the slightest difference to the identity of the petitioner inasmuch as even if the testimony of PW-2 with regard to the identification of the present petitioner is thrown out, the testimony of PW-3 [virender kumar] remains. PW-3 has clearly identified the present petitioner as being the person who took the Maruti car from the possession of the complainant, Vivek Khanna [pw-2] after pushing him. PW-3 has clearly identified the present petitioner as being the person who took the Maruti car from the possession of the complainant, Vivek Khanna [pw-2] after pushing him. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to make some capital out of the fact that the PW-3 [virender Kumar] has admitted that his eye-sight was not very good for close distances, however, I am not impressed by this line of argument inasmuch as no questions were put to the witness [pw- 3] with regard to the distance from which he saw the incident. A person may be shortsighted, yet he may have excellent vision for longer distances. There is no discrepancy with regard to the identification procedure insofar as the PW-3 [virender Kumar] is concerned and he has identified the petitioner. Therefore, even if the testimony of PW-2 [vivek Khanna] is pushed aside, the petitioner cannot escape the fact that he was identified by PW-3 [virender Kumar]. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This revision petition is dismissed.