JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The applicant in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeks termination of proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha J.P. Nagar ( Crime No. 5459 of 2003) under Sections 392 and 412 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. I have heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 3. There were five witnesses of identification in relation to three robberies said to have been committed by the applicant and his accomplices during the course of the same night, one out of them was an Assistant Station Master, Kaphoorpur, who lodged the F.I.R. but he did not appear in the identification parade.The other four witnesses did not identify the applicant. The contention of the applicant’s Counsel, therefore, is that the charge of robbery would be unjustifiable because no witnesses identified the applicant at the identification parade. 4. The contention is justified and must be upheld because identification of an unknown dacoit or robber in Court without prior identification by the witness at the identification parade is of no value. There is hardly any scope for controversy on this aspect. the Trial for robbery, if it proceeds would be only a farce. The charge under Section 392, I.P.C. should, therefore, be quashed. 5. As regards the charge under Section 412, I.P.C. the allegation against the applicant is, that a watch taken by robbers during the course of robbery was recovered from him. According to the first information report, the watch was of one Hari Ram Meena while in the memo of arrest of the applicant, it has been mentioned that it was identified by Rakesh Kumar Gupta, as belonging to him whose watch was not taken away during the course of robbery. The nexus of the watch with the incident of recovery is, therefore, jinxed, and no charge under Section 412, I.P.C. can be mentioned on this evidence, and the trial of the applicant on the basis of such evidence would inevitably result in acquittal. It would, therefore, be wholly unnecessary to subject the applicant to a trial under Section 412, I.P.C. when his acquittal on the same is a forgone conclusion. 6. It would, therefore, be wholly unnecessary to subject the applicant to a trial under Section 412, I.P.C. when his acquittal on the same is a forgone conclusion. 6. There is also a charge under the Arms Act, in connection with which, it has been said that a telegram was given by the brother of the applicant that he was taken away from the house at Ghaziabad on 18.11.2003 around 12.30 in the noon and in official records, his arrest was shown at later hours at 8.30 p.m. and the allegation of recovery of Fire Arms from him is, therefore, fallacious. The question as to what is the worth and value and legal consequence of such a telegram will have to be determined at the time of trial. on the basis of evidence about the same and the surrounding circumstances. The trial under the Arms Act cannot, therefore, be done away with, at the present juncture. The trial under the Arms Act will have, therefore, to proceed. 7. In the result, proceedings under Sections 392 and 412 Indian Penal Code against the applicant are quashed while proceedings under the Arms Act shall continue. 8. Petition partly allowed. ————