JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By judgment and order, dated 4.7.2001, passed, in GR Case No. 11/1996, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, convicted the accused-Petitioner under Section 387 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 (one) month. 2. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused-Petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 49(S-3)/2001. By judgment and order, dated 22.05.2002, the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, while upholding the conviction of the accused-Petitioner and dismissing his appeal, reduced the sentence to 1 (one) year and fine of Rs 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer imprisonment for a further period of 1 (one) month. Still feeling aggrieved, the accused-Petitioner has come to this Court with the help of the present revision. 3. I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the accused-Petitioner, and Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 4. The case against the accused-Petitioner, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as follows: On 21.12.95, two boys came to the shop of the informant, namely, Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, and enquired from him as to how his business was. The informant told them that he was not doing very well. Thereafter, those two boys handed over an envelope to the informant and told him that they had come to his shop seeking financial help and all instructions were given, in this regard, in the said letter and that they would send one of their boys to the informant's shop two boys thereafter i.e. on Saturday, and the informant should hand over money to the boy, whom the said two boys would send to the informant's shop. Having, thus, clarified as to why they had come to the informant's shop and how the money would be collected, the said boys left the informant's shop. The informant found two letters inside the said envelope. By one of these letters, he was asked to pay Rs. 50,000/- and by other letter, he was threatened that if he failed to make the payment, members of his family would be killed. The informant found two letters inside the said envelope. By one of these letters, he was asked to pay Rs. 50,000/- and by other letter, he was threatened that if he failed to make the payment, members of his family would be killed. Both these letters contained the embalme and seal of ULFA, i.e., a banned outfit. On 23.12.95, at about 5.30 p.m., a rickshaw puller, namely, Narendra Bania, who was known to the informant, came to the informant's shop and handed over Anr. letter to the informant. This letter also repeated the said demand of Rs. 50,000/-. On 26.12.95 at about 2 pm, two boys came on a motorcycle bearing registration No. AS 12/7200 and after parking their motorcycle in front of the informant's shop, the two boys came inside the shop and demanded to know from the informant as to why the payment had not been made. One of the boys, who came on the said motor vehicle, had come earlier also on 21.12.95. The informant identified this boy at the trial, the boy having turned out to be accused Montu Rahman (i.e., the present accused-Petitioner). This accused-Petitioner also told the informant that money was required for making some purchases by their organization and if the money was not given, the informant would be placed on the hit list and his son would be kidnapped. With the threats, so given, accused Montu Rahman and his associate left the informant's shop. Scared and left with no alternative, the informant lodged an FIR, on 3.1.96, with regard to the said demand for money raised by ULFA and a case was accordingly registered by the police under Section 387 IPC. Suresh Rai (PW 6) and Chandrika Mahato (PW 7), who used to work, at the relevant time, as the informant's employees, were present on both the occasions at the informant's shop, when the boys had come there and demanded payment of money. During the course of investigation, the two persons including the present accused-Petitioner were arrested and a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held on 29.01.96. In this TIP, the informant, Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, and his employee, Suresh Rai, identified the accused-Petitioner, Montu Rahman. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against two persons including the present accused-Petitioner under Section 387 IPC. 5. In this TIP, the informant, Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, and his employee, Suresh Rai, identified the accused-Petitioner, Montu Rahman. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against two persons including the present accused-Petitioner under Section 387 IPC. 5. To the charge framed under Section 387 IPC against them, at the trial, both the accused persons pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses. The two accused persons, who had faced the trial, were, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and in their examination aforementioned, both of them denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. Having found accused Kamrul Ahmed not guilty of the charge framed against him, the learned trial Court acquitted him accordingly; but on finding the present accused-Petitioner guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted the present accused-Petitioner accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. As the appeal preferred by the accused-Petitioner failed to yield the desired result, the Petitioner has, now, impugned his conviction and the sentence, passed against him, in the present revision. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, has submitted that the prosecution, in the present case, failed to adduce adequate convincing evidence to prove that any demand for money, as alleged by the informant and the two of his employees, were really made. This apart contends Mr. Choudhury, the TIP held, in the present case, was full of flaws and in the face of legally not sustainable T.I.P., the mere identification of the accused-Petitioner, at the trial, ought not to have been made basis for conviction of the accused-Petitioner under Section387 IPC. The submissions, so made, on behalf of the accused-Petitioner, have been countered by the learned Additional Public prosecutor, Assam, by contending that the evidence on record not only proves the fact that the demand for money had been repeatedly made, but also that the present accused-Petitioner was one of the boys, who had the demand for money. 7. The submissions, so made, on behalf of the accused-Petitioner, have been countered by the learned Additional Public prosecutor, Assam, by contending that the evidence on record not only proves the fact that the demand for money had been repeatedly made, but also that the present accused-Petitioner was one of the boys, who had the demand for money. 7. While considering the present revision, what needs to be noted, at the very out set, is that the fact that the informant and/or his employees, on the one hand, and the accused-Petitioner, on the other, were not known to each other, has not been in dispute. It has also not been in dispute that neither the informant nor any of his said two employees had any animosity against the accused-Petitioner. What can also not be ignored is the fact that the informant had no reason to falsely allege that demand for payment of money had been made to him. This apart, when there is no specific denial by the defence of the evidence given by the informant and his said two employees to the effect that the demand for money had been made from the informant, there could have been no justified reason for the learned Courts below to doubt the veracity of the evidence given by the informant and his said two employees that the demand for money, as deposed to by them, had, indeed, been raised in the name of ULFA. 8. Bearing in mind what have been indicated above, when I turn to the evidence of the informant (PW1), I notice that according to his evidence, on 21.12.1995, at about 5 p.m., two boys came to his shop, when he was present there, and sat down in front of him and asked him as to how his business was. In response to the query, so made, PW 1 told the boys that his business was not too well, whereupon the two boys handed over an envelope to PW 1 telling PW 1 that they had come to PW 1 seeking financial help and that every thing is written in the letter and that on Saturday, they would send a boy to PW 1 and PW 1 should hand over the money to him and with these words and having, thus, clarified as to how the money would be collected from PW 1, the two boys left. PW 1 has also deposed that after the two boys left his shop, he opened the envelope and found two letters inside the envelope and while one of the letters contained the demand for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), the informant was threatened by other letter that if the money was not given, his family members would be killed. Both these letters, according to the evidence of PW 1, contained the seal and emblame of ULFA (i.e., a banned militant organization). 9. PW 1 has further deposed that two days thereafter, i.e., on 23.12.1995, at about 5.30 p.m., one Narendra Bania of Foleswar Gaon came and handed over a letter to him (PW 1). In this letter, it was written that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be handed over to the bearer of the letter and when PW1 expressed his inability to give money, the said Narendra Bania left. It is in the evidence of PW 1 that on 26.12.1995, at about 2 p.m., two boys, came on a Bajaj scooter bearing registration No. AS 127200 and, after parking their scooter in front of his shop, came to him and wanted to know from him as to why he had not paid money. It is also in the evidence of PW 1 that out of these two boys, one was accused Montu Rahman. PW 1 has deposed that accused Montu Rahman told him that they require money to purchase materials for their organization and if the money was not given, then, he (PW 1) would be placed in the hit list. PW 1 has also deposed that accused Montu Rahman further told him (PW1) that they would take away his (PW 1 s) son and for his return, they would demand Rs. 2,00,000/- and when PW 1 expressed his inability to give the money, the two boys, including accused-Petitioner, gave 2.1.1996 as the last date for making payment and further threatened that if the money was not paid, as demanded, then, on 3.1.1996, he (PW 1) would be in trouble and with the threats, so given, both the boys including accused Montu Rahman left. PW 1 has further deposed that he, thereafter, lodged an Ejahar with the police and the police seized from him the letters aforementioned. 10. PW 1 has further deposed that he, thereafter, lodged an Ejahar with the police and the police seized from him the letters aforementioned. 10. Though PW 1 was put to cross-examination, at length, by the defence, the material aspects of his evidence remained unshaken. In fact, at the time of hearing of the present revision, nothing could be pointed out, in the evidence of PW 1, to show that his evidence that demand for money in the manner, as has been deposed to by him, had been raised, cannot be believed. What, therefore, emerges unscathed from the evidence of PW 1 is that on 21.12.1995, two boys came to the shop of PW 1, they handed over an envelope to PW 1 telling PW 1 that they had come to PW 1 to take financial help and all instructions were written in the said letter and a boy would come to the shop of PW 1 on Saturday, i.e., on 23.12.1995 and collect the money from PW 1. What also remains unshaken in the evidence of PW 1 is that a man named, Narendra Bania, of Foleswar Gaon came, on 23.12.1995, to the shop of PW 1 with a letter, whereby PW 1 was asked to give Rs. 50,000/- to the bearer of the letter. What has further emerged from the evidence of PW 1 is that on 26.12.1995, two boys came to his shop on a scooter and one of them was accused Montu Rahman and they enquired from PW 1 as to why the money had not been paid and they also clarified to PW 1 that they needed the money for purchasing materials for their organization and that if the money was not paid, PW 1 s son would be kidnapped, the last date for making the payment being the 2nd of January, 1996. What can also not be ignored is that the evidence of PW 1 that the letter, which had been handed over to him on 21.12.1995, bore the seal and emblame of ULFA and it was, eventually, on 26.12.1995, that he was asked to make payment on 2nd of January, 1996, or else, the would be in trouble on 3rd of January, 1996, and it was, then, that he (PW 1) informed the police by loding, in this regard, an FIR. 11. 11. It is, now, of immense importance to note that PW 1 has clarified, in his cross-examination, that on the day, accused Montu Rahman and one of his associates came to the shop of PW 1, his two employees, namely, Suresh Rai (PW 6) and Chandrika Mahato (PW7) were present. Both PWs 6 and 7 have corroborated the evidence given by PW 1 and nothing could be pointed out from their evidence to show that what PW 1 had deposed was untrue or false. This apart, the presence of PWs 6 and 7 at the shop of PW 1, when the two boys had come to the shop of PWl on 21.12.1995 and on 26.12.1995, cannot be said to be unnatural, for, both PW 6 and PW 7 were the employees of PW 1. Thus, PWs 6 and 7 were natural witnesses of the occurrence and the evidence of PWs 6 and 7, having supported the evidence of PW1, the learned Courts below had no reason to discard the evidence of these three witnesses or not to believe the evidence, which these three witnesses had given. Merely because of the fact that PWs 6 and 7 happened to be the employees of PW 1, PWs 6 and 7 cannot be branded as interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be discarded on such a ground, particularly, when there is nothing, in the evidence of PW 1, to show that PWs 6 and 7 were not present and/or that apart from PWs 6 and 7, some other persons were also present at the said shop. 12. What is, now, of utmost importance to note is that all the three witnesses, namely, PWs 1,6 and 7 have asserted that accused Montu Rahman came to the shop of PW 1 on 26.12.1995. 13. In the backdrop of the above evidence on record, when I turn to the evidence of PW 10, who is a Judicial Magistrate and who had held the TIP on 29.9.1996, I notice that though PW 10 too was put to cross examination, nothing, in particular, was elicited from him to show accused Montu Rahman, who was identified, at the said TIP, by PWs 1 and 6 had already been shown to PW1 and/or PW 6. In fact, though it has been suggested to the Investigating Officer (PW 11) that accused Montu Rahman had already been shown to PWs 1, 6 and 7, before the TIP was held, the defence did not even suggest to the witness concerned, namely, PWs 1,6 and 7 that accused Montu Rahman had been shown to them by the police before he was identified at the TIP. In the face of the fact that while PWs 1 and 6 were being cross-examined, the defence did not even suggest to them that accused Montu Rahman had been shown to them before they identified accused Montu Rahman at the TIP, the suggestion offered to the Investigating Officer that accused Montu Rahman had been shown to the witnesses concerned can be attributed no importance at all. This apart, as already indicated hereinabove, there is no convincing cross-examination of PW 10 to show that before the TIP was conducted, accused Montu Rahman had already been shown to PWs 1,6 and/or 7. 14. Thus, when the evidence on record clearly reveals that on 21.12.1995, two boys, who had come to the shop of the informant, had sat down there and had talked to them for some time and when, 26.12.1995, again two boys, came and talked to PW 1, as indicated hereinbefore, it becomes clear that PWs 1, 6 and 7 had sufficient time and adequate opportunity to not only talk to the boys, but also see and notice the boys, who had come to the said shop on 21.12.1995 and 26.12.1995. In such circumstances, when PWs 1, 6 and 7 identified, at the trial, accused Montu Rahman as one of the boys, who had come to the said shop on 26.12.1995, their evidence cannot be held to be untrustworthy or unsafe, particularly, when PWs 1 and 6 had already identified this accused, at the TIP too, held on 29.1.1996 and when, if I may reiterate, not even a suggestion was given to PW 1 and/or PW 6 that accused Montu Rahman had been shown to them before the TIP was conducted. 15. I may pause, at this stage, to point out that Mr. 15. I may pause, at this stage, to point out that Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, has relied upon the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharshtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 160 , to show that delay in holding of Test Identification Parade makes the identification of an accused doubtful 16. While considering the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha (supra), what needs to be noted is that in Rajesh Govind Jagesha (supra), the accused had beard and long hair at the time of alleged commission of crime, but no one, having beard and long hair, was included in the parade. However, the witnesses still identified the accused at the very first sight, though he had removed his beard and long hair. It was in these circumstances that the delay of 5 weeks in holding of the TIP was held by the Court to have made the identification, at the Test Identification Parade, unreliable and untrustworthy, for, the possibility, in the said case, could not have been ruled out that the witnesses had already seen the accused between the date of his arrest and the TIP. In the present case, however, except the fact that there is some delay in holding of the TIP, there is no material on other record to hold that the identification of the accused by the witnesses was of doubtful nature. Situated thus, I do not find that in the case at hand, the accused-Petitioner has been able to make out any case for this Court to infer that the witnesses had already seen the accused-Petitioner between the date of his arrest and the TIP. 17. While considering the above aspect of the case, it is also pertinent to note that identification of an accused, at the trial, is substantive piece of evidence. In order to ensure that there is no error or deliberate mischief played in identifying the accused at the trial, it is, as a rule of prudence and caution, that the TIP is held. In order to ensure that there is no error or deliberate mischief played in identifying the accused at the trial, it is, as a rule of prudence and caution, that the TIP is held. When the TIP was, admittedly held, and when no evidence, as in the present case, exists on record probablizing, far less proving, that before the TIP was conducted, the accused-Petitioner had already been shown to PWs, 1,6 or PW 7, the identification of the accused-Petitioner by PWs 1 and 6, at the TIP, coupled with the identification of the accused-Petitioner, at the trial, by not only PWs 1 and 6, but also by PW 7, was sufficient, in law, for the learned trial Court to believe that accused Montu Rahman did attempt to extort money as claimed by PWs 1, 6 and 7 and it is not material, at all, whether the money demanded was, ultimately, realized by accused-Petitioner and his associates from PW 1 or not. 18. In the face of the clear evidence available on record as discussed above, the conclusion reached by the learned Courts below that the accused-Petitioner was guilty of the charge framed against him cannot be said to be, legally or factually, infirm. Viewed thus, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of guilt reached by the learned Courts below. 19. As far as sentence passed against the accused-Petitioner is concerned, I do not find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence, eventually, passed against the accused-Petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge calls for further interference. 20. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 21. The accused-Petitioner is hereby directed to surrender, forthwith, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, to serve the sentence of imprisonment passed against him. 22. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed of. 23. Send back the LCRs. Revision dismissed