JUDGMENT: R.C. CHAVAN, J. 1. These two appeals by the original accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in Maharashtra Control of Organised Act, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as MCOC Act) Special Case Nos.23 of 2007 and 6 of 2008 are directed against their conviction by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act, 1999 at Bombay, and sentences imposed upon them at the end of the trial. The learned Judge convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 457 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the first 2 counts and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for two months on the third count. The learned Judge acquitted the appellants of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, Sentences 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He also acquitted coaccused i. e. accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 9 of the offences for which they were charged. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under :- On the night of 15th June, 2007, the first informant Ranjit Naik and his family members were sleeping in their house. In the early hours of 16th June, 2007, Ranjit got up to answer call of nature, when he noticed one person in the kitchen. By the time he raised alarm and other members of the family woke up, three more persons barged into the house by breaking open the front door of the house. They asked inmates of the house not to shout. The inmates also told the miscreants not to injur and take away whatever the miscreants wanted. The miscreants then fled away with valuables worth Rs.3,24,000/- after tying Ranjit and his father Vijay. Their sister, Swapna, who was also in the house untied them. Ranjit went to neighbours house and telephoned police. The police party soon arrived. On a report by Ranjit, an offence was registered. 3. The police performed panchanama of the spot and started investigation. In course of investigation, appellants and others were arrested. Their sister, Swapna, who was also in the house untied them. Ranjit went to neighbours house and telephoned police. The police party soon arrived. On a report by Ranjit, an offence was registered. 3. The police performed panchanama of the spot and started investigation. In course of investigation, appellants and others were arrested. At the instance of appellant Suresh ‘original accused No.1, some items of jewelery were recovered from his Jeweller at Parli Vaijnath. They were identified as those of which complainant's family were robbed. Appellant Dashrath Bapu Shinde's interrogation led to recovery of certain implements used for house breaking. Nothing was recovered at the instance of appellant Kalyan alias Dalya. The recovery from Jeweler at Parli Vaijnath was in form of packets containing jewellery with names of other accused persons as well, as if other accused persons had deposited those items of jewelery with the jeweler. 4. In course of investigation, it was found some of the miscreants had previously been charge sheeted more than twice for similar offences carrying punishment of more than three years and that cognizance had been taken by the Courts concerned. Therefore, a proposal to apply the provisions of MCOC Act was moved and after receiving the necessary approval, investigation was taken over by Assistant Commissioner of Police. Confessional statements of some of the miscreants were got recorded by Deputy Commissioner of Police and after obtaining requisite approval for prosecuting all the accused persons for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act, charge sheet was sent to the Special Court for trial of the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. 5. The learned trial Judge charged in all nine persons of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act, Sections 395, 397, 457, 506(II) read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also Sections 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He also charged the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 137 of the Bombay Police Act. Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 22 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused persons. After considering the evidence tendered in the light of defence of denial, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and acquitted others as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. After considering the evidence tendered in the light of defence of denial, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and acquitted others as indicated above. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel I have gone through the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellants first submitted that the appellant Suresh was arrested on 27th August, 2007 while Dashrath was arrested on 30th July, 2007. They were put at test identification parade on 21st September, 2007. This parade was held by the Executive Magistrate PW-16 Ramesh Jagannath Rane at which PW-2 Vijay Appasaheb Naik and PW-17 Swapna Naik identified accused Suresh Bhaurao Shinde. Swapna also identified appellant Kalyan alias Dalya Shiva Shinde. At the next round of parade, PW-1 Ranjit Naik and PW-2 Vijay Naik and PW-17 Swapna Naik identified appellant Dashrath Bapu Shinde. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the parade was held a long time after the arrest of the appellants, the evidence of identification of the appellants should have been rejected by the learned trial Judge. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge had observed about another test identification parade held by PW-9 Navinchandra Pandurang Kandalkar that the parade was not held properly and therefore, identification of other accused persons at that parade was not proved. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the observations of the learned trial Judge in para 55 of his Judgment that PW-9 Navinchandra Kandalkar did not care to follow simple rules made for conduct of the test identification parade was equally valid in respect of the parade held by PW-16 Ramesh Rane. They submitted that Rane had not cared to satisfy himself that the witnesses did not have an opportunity of seeing the accused persons. Apart from asking the witnesses whether they had such an opportunity, according to the learned counsel, the Magistrate should also have asked the accused persons whether they had been shown to the witnesses. It was also submitted that accused Dashrath had a plaster to his hand at the time of test identification parade whereas dummies, who were paraded did not have any such plaster and therefore, identification was vitiated. It was also submitted that accused Dashrath had a plaster to his hand at the time of test identification parade whereas dummies, who were paraded did not have any such plaster and therefore, identification was vitiated. The learned counsel for the appellants re-iterated that unexplained delay in holding the parade should have pursuaded the learned trial Judge to reject this evidence. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence of identification of the appellants was rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge. She submitted that the delay was not at all enormous considering the fact that recovery had to be made from Parli Vaijnath a place far away from Mumbai. She also submitted that there is nothing to show that the witnesses had an opportunity to see the appellants before they were actually put up for the test identification parade. She submitted that too many technicalities cannot be insisted in conduct of parades or making a record of conduct of parades, as otherwise even in good cases, it would be impossible to have the miscreants convicted though they may have committed serious offence. She submitted that statement of PW-16 Ramesh Rane that he had put up usual questions and on his satisfaction that the accused were not seen by the witnesses, he proceeded with the parade should be enough to dispel all doubts about the manner in which the parade was conducted. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde, however, submitted that the said appellant was not identified by PW-1 Ranjit Naik and PW-2 Vijay Naik. He was identified by only PW-17 Swapna Naik. PW-17 Swapna Naik had, in fact, identified several persons at the parade leading to a question by the Court to her. It may be re-called. According to PW-22 API Nandkumar Maruti Gopale, number of persons involved were only four. The learned trial Judge had asked her that number of culprits were four and yet she had identified six persons. The learned counsel for the appellant Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde submitted that if the learned trial Judge had not replied on identification of other accused persons by PW-17 Swapna Naik, her identification of appellant Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde should also have been found to be doubtful by the learned trial Judge, benefit whereof should have gone to Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde. 10. 10. It is true that the learned trial Judge has not chosen to rely on identification of other accused persons by PW-17 Swapna Naik. Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde has not been identified by PW-1 Ranjit Naik and PW-2 Vijay Naik, who had an opportunity to see the miscreants for longer time than PW-17 Swapna Naik, who was, in fact in a room. Therefore, though the learned APP submitted that there is nothing wrong about identification of Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde by PW-17 Swapna Naik, in my view, the evidence is too fragile to convict him particularly, in the context of the fact that there is no recovery made at the instance of or from appellant Kalyan alias Dalya Shinde. Therefore, his conviction based on identification by PW-17 Swapna Naik cannot be sustained. 11. The learned counsel for the two other appellants submitted that even identification of the two appellants was doubtful first, because of the plaster on the hand of Dashrath Shinde and secondly, on account of delay. The learned counsel also submitted that PW-16 Ramesh Rane did not ascertain from the witnesses the role which was played by these appellants. As far as delay is concerned, that aspect is already discussed. The delay is no so enormous as to vitiate test identification parade. While it is ideal for an officer conducting parade to ask the witnesses about the role played by accused person, who is identified, it cannot be an inflexible rule which would vitiate identification. It was for the investigating officer to ascertain the role of accused person, who had already been identified. As far as plaster on the hand of appellant Dashrath Shinde is concerned, it is not that Dashrath Shinde was identified because of the plaster on the hand. It is nobody's case that at the time of house breaking, Dashrath's hand was already fractured and therefore, he was identified not by his other features, but by fractured hand. Therefore, identification of Suresh Shinde and Dashrath Shinde cannot at all be assailed. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, their complicity is under lined by recovery of ornaments at the instance of Suresh Shinde from jeweler at Parli Vaijnath and recovery of implements of house breaking at the instance of Dashrath. PW-3 Anant Maruti Borde is a panch at the recovery of ornaments made vide Exhibits 33 and 34 at Parli Vaijnath. PW-3 Anant Maruti Borde is a panch at the recovery of ornaments made vide Exhibits 33 and 34 at Parli Vaijnath. The learned counsel for the appellants may be right in submitting that there is some artificiality to this recovery, in as much as the officer sought to show that there were six packets were kept with names of six accused persons. All the same, the fact that ornaments were recovered at a distant place like Parli Vaijnath were and duly identified by the victims, cannot be lost sight off. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in submitting that this recovery, proved by PW-3 Anant Borde, would clearly indicate complicity of appellant Suresh Shinde. 13. As far as recovery made at the instance of accused No.5 Dashrath Shinde is concerned, the evidence comes from PW-4 Hemant Michael Joseph, who proved Memorandum and panchanama at Exhibits 36 and 37. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant Dashrath Shinde had, in fact, nothing to do with the room from where recovery was made, and that the room in fact, stood in the name of one Bhima Kale, who is father of accused No.6 Vijay Kale. She also pointed out that the room was, in fact, opened by police and not by Dashrath Shinde. Therefore, according to her, the evidence of recovery ought to have been rejected by the learned trial Judge. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to support conclusions drawn by the learned trial Judge and suggested that the deviations should not matter, it has to be observed that the evidence about this recovery is weak. The officer PW-22 Nandkumar Gopale should have seen known as to how the evidence about discovery has to be tendered. It would not be proper to merely state that the accused made a statement making discovery. All the same, the fact that it was Dashrath Shinde, who led to the room of father of accused No.6 Vijay Kale, would add strength to the identification of appellant Dashrath by PW-1 Ranjit Naik, PW-2 Vijay Naik and PW-17 Swapna Naik. Therefore, there can be no doubt as far as complicity of Dashrath Shinde is concerned. 14. All the same, the fact that it was Dashrath Shinde, who led to the room of father of accused No.6 Vijay Kale, would add strength to the identification of appellant Dashrath by PW-1 Ranjit Naik, PW-2 Vijay Naik and PW-17 Swapna Naik. Therefore, there can be no doubt as far as complicity of Dashrath Shinde is concerned. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that the evidence of PW-1 Ranjit Naik, PW-2 Vijay Naik and PW-17 Swapna Naik, even if taken for face value, does not show that any weapon was used for attracting provisions under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. She, therefore, submitted that conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code was uncalled for. She also submitted that there is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses to show that the appellants had threatened or put the victim in some fear of death or grievous hurt in order to attract the penal provisions of Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the victims state that they were put in fear. If the victims state that they were themselves afraid at the relevant time, that in itself would not be sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of putting them in fear. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that mere presence of four miscreants at the victims' house in the early hours of 16th June, 2007 was itself sufficient to put the victims in fear may not be enough for holding the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence of the three witnesses does not show that any weapon was at all used. Therefore, conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code obviously cannot be sustained. The conviction would have to be brought down to that for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, though the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that even this Section was not attracted, because, in her view, theft in this case could not amount to robbery. The conviction would have to be brought down to that for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, though the learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that even this Section was not attracted, because, in her view, theft in this case could not amount to robbery. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the appellants overlooked that theft would become robbery, if the victim is subjected to wrongful restraint, and, in this case, there is evidence of PW-1 Ranjit Naik and PW-2 Vijay Naik being tied up by the miscreants. In view of this, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code would have to be altered to that for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. There is clear evidence of all the three prosecution witnesses that the appellants Suresh and Dashrath had broken into house of the victims in order to commit offence of theft, which they did commit during the night between 15th and 16th June, 2007 i. e. after sunset and before sunrise. Therefore, conviction of these appellants for the offence punishable under Section 457 is thoroughly justified. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that ordinarily, the offences for which the appellants should have been charged were those punishable under Sections 392 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code triable by a Magistrate. Since the victims had indicated complicity of only four persons, there was no question of dacoity. She submitted that ordinarily the case should have been tried by the Magistrate and was unnecessarily filed in the Court of the Special Judge. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, had the case been tried by the Magistrate, the sentence that could have been imposed would have been maximum for three years on each count. Therefore, according to her, the sentence imposed would have to be reduced to that which the appellant could have been suffered had they been tried by the Magistrate. 18. These ifs and buts would not alter the fact that the appellants have been tried by the learned Special Judge. It cannot also be overlooked. They did break in the victims' house. 18. These ifs and buts would not alter the fact that the appellants have been tried by the learned Special Judge. It cannot also be overlooked. They did break in the victims' house. All the same, since the gravity of the offence is substantially reduced by the fact that the use of weapon was not proved and since conviction of the appellants is altered to less serious offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence imposed would have to be proportionately reduced. 19. In view of the foregoing, Criminal Appeal No.1049 of 2009 is allowed. The appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 457 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences imposed upon him for these offences are set aside. 20. Criminal Appeal No.1070 of 2009 is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 457 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code is altered to that for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence is reduced to that of rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. They are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence for the said offence is set aside.