JUDGMENT : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. :- The Appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.4.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 635 of 1990. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent-original accused under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: P.W.1 Shrichand was residing at Malad (W), Mumbai. On 14.2.1990 he went for morning walk to the garden of Sunder Nagar Colony situated in Malad, Mumbai. He went for a walk at about 5.45 am. to 6.00 am. At that time, he was wearing ornaments on his person like chain with a locket, finger ring etc. All these articles were of gold. When he came near Shankar Mandir which is at the corner, he was surrounded by four unknown persons. It was a sudden attack. One of them threatened him and asked for all the valuables from him. Two of them were having knives in their hands. He delivered the valuables to the person who threatened him. He was frightened at that time. After commission of robbery, the robbers immediately dispersed from the scene of offence. Shrichand then lodged F.I.R. (Exh.12). Thereafter, investigation commenced. The respondent along with two persons were arrested. Fourth person could not be traced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed only against the respondent under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC because the other two accused were discharged. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondent is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in the present case, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned A.P.P. for the Appellant- State of Maharashtra. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the judgment delivered by the learned Judge and the evidence on record, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. 5. The conviction of the respondent is mainly based on the evidence of P.W. 1 Shrichand who is the first informant in the present case. 5. The conviction of the respondent is mainly based on the evidence of P.W. 1 Shrichand who is the first informant in the present case. Shrichand has stated that on 14.2.1990 he went for morning walk in the garden of Sunder Nagar Colony situated in Malad, Mumbai. He went for a walk at about 5.45 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. At that time, he was wearing ornaments on his person like chain with a locket, finger ring etc. All these articles were of gold. When he came near Shankar Mandir which is at the corner, he was surrounded by four unknown persons. It was a sudden attack. One of them threatened him and asked for all the valuables from him. Two of them were having knives in their hands. He delivered the valuables to the person who threatened him. He was frightened at that time. After commission of robbery, the robbers immediately dispersed from the scene of offence. Shrichand then lodged F.I.R. (Exh.12). Thereafter, on 28.4.1990 he was called for test identification parade at D.N. Nagar Police Station. In the said parade, he identified the respondent as the person who committed robbery. It is pertinent to note that Shrichand has not stated anywhere that the respondent was also holding a weapon at the time of the incident. Hence, in such case, section 397 of I PC could not be attracted. 6. As far as the identification or the respondent by Shrichand is concerned, Shrichand in his cross-examination has admitted that there was no sufficient light at the place where the actual robbery took place. It is also pertinent to note that the incident took place early in the morning of February at 5.45 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. The respondent was unknown to Shrichand. Hence, holding or test identification parade was necessary. No doubt, the parade was held on 28.4.1990, however. it was held in D.N. Nagar Police Station. Thus. in the instant case, the main evidence against the respondent is that of identification. We wish to emphasize that the condition precedent for accepting the evidence of identification is, it should be fair and beyond reproach. To secure that it has to be ensured that prior to the test identification the suspect was not shown to the identifying witnesses and the identification was held in the manner stipulated by the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature, Appellate Side, Bombay. To secure that it has to be ensured that prior to the test identification the suspect was not shown to the identifying witnesses and the identification was held in the manner stipulated by the Criminal Manual issued by the High Court of Judicature, Appellate Side, Bombay. In the instant case, we find that the identification was not held in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Manual. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramcharan Bhudiram Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1996(1) Bom.C.R. 190 : [1995(1) ALL MR 122] observed in paras 16 and 17 thus: "16. We strongly deprecate the practice of conducting identification at police stations; a practice which we are informed at the Bar is only prevalent in Greater Bombay. The sooner it is abandoned the better it is because, the probability of the suspects being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification is always there at the police station. At any rate, on account of such a practice, there is always a lurking suspicion in the mind of the Court that the witnesses might have seen the suspects prior to the test identification. 17. In order to make identification evidence beyond reproach, it is high time that an end is put to the practice of holding of identification at police station and identification parades instead are held in jail. This practice would not only enable the police to wash the stigma of showing suspects prior to their identification; a stigma which more than often is unfounded, but has manifold other advantages. Jails have a large population these days. It would be easy there to find persons similar to the suspects sought to be put for identification. Such similar persons have to be mixed with the suspects at the time of identification. The identification in jail would not only actually be free from any taint or suspicion but equally importantly it would also appear to be so. It would instill a sense of confidence both in the minds of the suspects sought to be put for identification as well as the Court." 7. The same view was taken in State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajesh alias Kaka Madanlal Soni, 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 471. It would instill a sense of confidence both in the minds of the suspects sought to be put for identification as well as the Court." 7. The same view was taken in State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajesh alias Kaka Madanlal Soni, 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 471. Test identification parades are normally held in Jail to eliminate the possibility of the accused persons being shown to the identifying witnesses by the police in the police station prior to the parade. In the present case, it can also be said that there is a very high probability of the respondent being shown to P.W. 1 Shrichand prior to the test identification parade. Looking to the fact that Shrichand has admitted that there was no sufficient light at the place where the robbery actually took place and the fact that the attack was sudden and accused persons dispersed from the spot quickly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that complainant Shrichand did not have sufficient opportunity to observe the respondent-accused. Moreover, as stated earlier, the parade was held in the police station and not in jail. In this view of the matter, we find it difficult to rely on the identification of the respondent-accused by P.W. 1 Shrichand in the identification parade. 8. Once we reach the conclusion that the evidence of identification is of no use, what remains is the evidence regarding recovery of various ornaments at the instance of the respondent. The evidence relating to recovery of articles also suffers from material discrepancies which cast doubt upon the veracity of the relevant evidence. The complainant has stated that his chain contained a locket, however, the chain recovered at the instance of the respondent did not have locket. Moreover, as far as the finger ring (Art. 3) is concerned, it has a stone of dark orange colour, however in the F.I.R. Shrichand has stated that ring had a blue colour stone. Thus, we find that the evidence regarding recovery of ornaments, does not inspire confidence. 9. On going through the evidence, we are of the opinion that the view of acquittal taken by the learned trial Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 10. Thus, we find that the evidence regarding recovery of ornaments, does not inspire confidence. 9. On going through the evidence, we are of the opinion that the view of acquittal taken by the learned trial Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 10. The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise from the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony Vs. K.G Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 130 (S.C.)] has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial Court. 11. We may also make useful reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dinesh, 2009(3) SCALE 345 wherein in a case of appeal against acquittal, it has been held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court. 12. In view of the above, Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.