JUDGMENT Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 22.01.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate Kashipur as well as dated 21.02.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Whereby request of the petitioners herein to hold Test Identification Parade was declined. 2. Since, only question of law is involved in the present case, therefore, Mr. K.S. Rautela, learned Assistant Government Advocate, submits that present petition may be heard and decide today itself. 3. In the opinion of this Court, since, FIR in question was registered under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Kashipur and State is being represent by Mr. K.S. Rautela, learned AGA, therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the informant and petition can be disposed of at this stage. 4. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner with Police Station Kashipur under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 120-B, 34 IPC naming the petitioners therein and attributing specific role against the petitioners in the murder of Mohd. Rafeek, Sartaj and Sehzad. 5. An application was moved before the Judicial Magistrate by the petitioners on 11.01.2013, stating therein that although petitioners were named in the FIR but petitioners were neither present on the spot nor informant and alleged witnesses can identify them; they have been falsely implicated in the present case; if Test Identification Parade is held, informant as well as the alleged eyewitness cannot identify them. Application, so moved by the petitioners, was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate and revision arising therefrom was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Case of Joginder Singh vs. Punjab State, 1974 Cri.L.J., 240 (V 80 C 93). Learned Single Judge, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Joginder Singh vs. Punjab State, has held as under: I fail to understand how a request made on behalf of the accused person can be declined on a ground like this. Learned Single Judge, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Joginder Singh vs. Punjab State, has held as under: I fail to understand how a request made on behalf of the accused person can be declined on a ground like this. Had it been within the powers of the police and the magistracy, to control the defence evidence which the accused wanted to lead, then perhaps no person standing trial in a criminal Court could get justice. This is a case in which the accused says that he has been wrongly involved in the case and the eye-witness cannot possibly identify him. The prosecution has come forth with the plea that identification need not be held because the prosecution witnesses already knew him. If the prosecution witnesses already knew the petitioner and they were unable to identify him in an identification parade, then there would be greater reason for discarding the testimony of such witnesses. Denial of this right to the petitioner tantamount to stopping from setting up a defence which he wants to set up in a criminal case. It is against the elementary principles of criminal law. 7. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Prakash Dhobi and another vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993, A.Cr.R., 669. Learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of Prakash Dhobi vs. State of U.P. has held as under: The contention of the defence for their identification with an allegation that they were not known to the witnesses is a part of their defence and if that part is denied, the trial in most of the cases is likely to be vitiated because, as already said above, once they are produced in court and directly or indirectly introduced to the witnesses, their defence stands lost. Of course the learned counsel for the State has referred me to the decision in Jadunath Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 363 but a perusal of this decision as a whole simply indicates that the principle enuncitated by the Supreme Court has been the same as observed above though in peculiar facts of that case, it was held that the trial was not vitiated. The principle of law laid down in para 18 was as under :- “Of course if the prosecution fails to hold identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case." At the present stage, it is too early to think as to whether they really know the accused or not but the conduct of the State or the police in arranging for the test identification will carry its own value and may give rise to certain presumptions as purpose of test identification cannot be obtained lateron. Further more, in para 20, the Supreme Court has observed : “It appears to us that the reason given by the prosecutor in the report and the reason given by the district Magistrate Judicial in the other directing that the identification requested for be not held were not valid." The reasons in the case before their Lordship were almost similar, that is, the chargesheet has already been submitted. If a chargesheet has been submitted does it mean that the accused would either wait behind the bars till the trial is over or lose of his defence in the form that the witnesses do not know him. I think both the situations will be too much prejudicial to the accused persons. It may be that in facts of the case, the Supreme Court did not consider the omission to be material but naturally it was after consideration of the evidence led during the trial and where in fact appellants had already lost method of challenging the prosecution witnesses through the identification proceedings. I need not go into all those details but the mere fact that the prosecution is feeling shy of getting the accused identified by the witnesses or to be more precise of getting the testimony of their witnesses challenged through identification proceeding before they are able to see the accused persons in the dock itself gives rise to an impression that for any reason the prosecution is not playing a fair play. 8. 8. As per the dictum of the Allahabad High Court as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court, it can safely be held that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to find out the truth and not merely to obtain conviction. If accused at the investigation has set up the defence that he was neither present on the spot nor involved in the incident and informant has wrongly named in the FIR then his request for holding Test Identification Parade should not be denied and if such a request is denied it would amount to denial of the defence to the accused. 9. In the opinion of this Court, present case is squarely recovered by the judgments of the Allahabad High Court as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore, present petition deserved to be allowed. Consequently, petition is allowed. Application moved by the present petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate stands allowed. Impugned order stands quashed. Learned Judicial Magistrate shall fix the date for holding Test Identification Parade, in accordance with law.