JUDGMENT : RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J. 1. Both the appeals arose out of a common judgment and order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial Case no 377/2010 arising out of Bally P.S. Case no. 240/2010 dated 27th June, 2010, convicting the appellants under Section 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 27th June, 2010 at about 8.30 p.m. while Pranoy Kumar Khan returning to Calcutta from his native village by riding Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing no. WB24M/8245 reached near C.C.R. Bridge Toll Plaza on NH 2 near Maity para, three miscreants in a motorcycle intercepted him and forced him to get down from his motorcycle. Thereafter, they decamped with his Hero Honda motorcycle after snatching his black coloured Micro Max Q5 model mobile no. 9836006810 along with folio bag containing two A.T.M. cards, Pan card, Bank pass book etc. and also cash of Rs. 2,000/- with some coins. Pranoy Kumar Khan raised alarm but none came to help him. Then he went to Bally P.S. narrated the incident to the Additional I.C. and the Duty Officer came with him to the place of occurrence but could not apprehend the culprits. Then he along with the Duty Officer returned to Bally P.S. where he lodged F.I.R. I.C., Bally P.S. entrusted the case to the Additional I.C. Prasenjit Banerjee, who was the first Investigating Officer of this case. During investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the rough sketch map with index, recorded statement of the available witnesses, seized registration certificate of motorcycle, recovered folio bag with its contents and also the mobile, made seizure list and gave zimmanama. He arrested accused Barun Hazra, interrogated Surajit Roy, Palash Bayen and Rabi Dey and arranged for T.I. Parade for Barun Hazra. He arrested accused Barun Hazra, interrogated Surajit Roy, Palash Bayen and Rabi Dey and arranged for T.I. Parade for Barun Hazra. On transfer of Prasenjit Banerjee, Investigating Officer, the case was endorsed to Sub-Inspector Ratneswar Das, who prayed for police custody of three accused persons namely, Surajit Roy, Rabi Dey and Prathidan Bala and interrogated them, recorded their statement, recovered motorcycle, prepared seizure list, gave zimmanama, arrested Palash Bayen and arranged for his T.I. Parade. Ultimately after observing all formalities, he submitted charge sheet being no. 419 of 2010 against all the accused persons under Section 392/395/412 of the Indian Penal Code before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. 3. On 18th December, 2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah committed the case to the Court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Howrah and on 23rd December, 2010 the case was transferred to the said Court for disposal in accordance with law. On 3rd February, 2011 after hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges were framed under Section 392/395/412 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in Bengali to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Mr. Debabrata Roy, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in CRA 120 of 2012 submitted that the learned Trial Judge erred in convicting the appellants based on identification in the Test Identification Parade held after police had shown the accused persons to P.W.1 while they were in thana lock up, though P.W.1 in his chief could not identify the accused persons at Court. He further submitted that the seized Motorcycle was never placed on Test Identification Parade and the seized article was not identified in Court. P.W.1, Pranay Kumar Khan, who witnessed the incident, failed to disclose during his examination in Court as to who snatched away his articles. He further submitted that the learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the evidence of P.W.1 that at the time of test identification parade he failed to disclose the role attributed by the appellant Barun Hazra at the time of commission of the alleged offence and as such the alleged identification of Barun Hazra had no evidentiary value to come to conclusion of the guilt of the accused. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Moktar Sahani vs. State reported in, (1985) CriLJ 90, particularly paragraph 6 thereof, wherein it was held that, "identification in Test Identification Parade can only operate on corroboration of identification, if any, in Court. In absence of identification in Court, identification in Test Identification Parade cannot be used for any corroborative purpose." 5. Mr. Imran Ali, learned advocate appearing as amicus curae in CRA 102 of 2012 submitted that P.W.1 could not identify the accused persons at Court and the Police had shown the appellants while they were in thana lock-up and the appellants were falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that P.W.12, Ratneswar Das stated in his evidence that he did not seize any paper about ownership of the house from where snatched Hero Honda Motorcycle was recovered and as such implication of the appellants is false and no document goes to show their involvement in the incident of snatching of articles. He lastly submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case and as such the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge. 6. Learned advocate for the State argued that according to the appellants, First Information Report was placed before the learned Magistrate belatedly and that there was delayed dispatch of the First Information Report from the concerned Police Station in violation of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but fact remains that there was no specific cross-examination to the Investigating Officer on the particular issue by the defence. It appears from the evidence of P.W.1, 10 and 11 that the Test Identification Parade was conducted in the Correctional Home and the appellants were identified by the witnesses during Test Identification Parade. Though P.W.1 could not identify the appellants and P.W.13 could not identify the appellant Barun Hazra, it is evident that the Test Identification Parade was held on 15th September, 2010 and 24th November, 2010 and the depositions were recorded on 13th March, 2011, i.e. after a lapse of about five months. It has been further argued that the First Information Report need not contain the description of the accused. It is apparent that arrest has been made on the basis of the complaint and thus the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is not tenable. It has been further argued that the First Information Report need not contain the description of the accused. It is apparent that arrest has been made on the basis of the complaint and thus the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is not tenable. Learned advocate for the State prayed that the order of conviction and sentence may be upheld and the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 8. The prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. P.W.1, Pronay Kumar Khan, Civil Engineer, who lodged First Information Report, stated that on 27th June, 2010 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was returning to his Calcutta residence from his native village by riding Hero Honda motorcycle bearing no. WB-24M/8245 and he reached near Maity para at the crossing of C.C.R. Bridge Toll Plaza on NH-2, three miscreants in a motorcycle intercepted him, forced him to get down from his motorcycle and decamped with his motorcycle, mobile and one folio bag inside which two ATM cards, Pan card, Bank pass-book etc. along with cash of Rs. 2,000/- and some coins from his possession. He further stated that he raised alarm but none came to help him. Then he went to Bally P.S. by a bus and narrated the incident to the Additional I.C. of Bally P.S. and the Duty Officer, Bally P.S. came along with him to the place of occurrence but could not find the miscreants there. Then they returned to the Bally P.S. where P.W.1 lodged written First Information Report. P.W.1 further stated that Police called him to Bally P.S. and took him to Andul Rajbari under Sankrail P.S. He came to know that one Gurudas Mukherjee had found his folio bag containing his ATM cards, bank passbook, papers relating to his motorcycle. Police seized all those documents under a seizure list dated 5th July, 2010. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer returned all those recovered articles to P.W.1. He identified accused Barun Hazra in T.I. Parade on 15th September, 2010 at Howrah Correctional Home and also identified accused Palash Bayen in T.I. Parade on 24th November, 2010 at Howrah Correctional Home. 9. During cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he had received all the snatched articles. After recovery, police informed him and accordingly, when he went to P.S., none of the accused persons was present there. 10. 9. During cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he had received all the snatched articles. After recovery, police informed him and accordingly, when he went to P.S., none of the accused persons was present there. 10. P.W.2, Paresh Manna, seizure witness stated that on 5th July, 2010 police seized some documents under seizure list in his presence where he put his signature. 11. P.W.3 Madan Mohan Khan, brother of P.W.1 stated that on 27th June, 2010 his brother informed him over phone that some persons snatched away his bike and some articles from him and on the basis of the said information, he went to Bally P.S., where he was examined. He further stated that he did not know anything about the incident. 12. P.W.4. Milan Khan, nephew of P.W.1 stated that after getting an information from his uncle regarding snatching away his bike and some articles, he went to Bally P.S. and found his uncle there. He stated that he did not know anything about the incident. 13. P.W.5, Taj Mohammad Mallik stated that he proved his signature on the seizure list, but in cross-examination he stated that he signed on a plain paper as asked by police and nothing was seized in his presence. 14. P.W.6, Gurudas Mukherjee, seizure witness stated that he signed on the seizure list as one of the witnesses. During cross-examination he stated that he put his signature on the seizure list as per instruction of police and he did not know anything about the incident except the seizure by police. 15. P.W.7, Sk. Raju, seizure witness stated that on 14th October, 2010 in between 5-6 p.m. police seized one motorcycle under seizure list in his presence in front of Madrasa of Argori Tarafdarpara and he proved his signature in the seizure list. However, in cross-examination he stated that he put his signature as per instruction of police and did not know the contents of the seizure list and nothing was seized in his presence. 16. P.W.8, Khokan Mallick, seizure witness stated that police came to his brick gola and obtained his signature on a paper and he put his signature on the paper. In cross-examination he also reiterated the same thing that he did not know the contents of the paper. 17. P.W.9, Nilmoni Chatterjee was neither witness nor he said anything about the recovery. 18. In cross-examination he also reiterated the same thing that he did not know the contents of the paper. 17. P.W.9, Nilmoni Chatterjee was neither witness nor he said anything about the recovery. 18. P.W. 10, Rintu Sur, learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah in his deposition stated that on 15th September, 2010 he held T.I. Parade at Howrah Correctional Home where Pronay Kumar Khan, F.I.R. lodger identified Barun Hazra @ Chottu. 19. P.W. 11, Tanima Das, learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court stated that on 15th September, 2010 she held T.I. Parade at Howrah Correctional Home where F.I.R. lodger Pranay Kumar Khan identified Barun Hazra @ Chottu. She further stated that on 24th November, 2010 she held T.I. Parade at Howrah Correctional Home where Pranay Kumar Khan identified Palash Bayen @ Bapan by keeping hand on his shoulder as the man who was on the motor bike on 27th June, 2010 with two other miscreants. 20. P.W.12, Ratneswar Das, Sub-Inspector of Police corroborated the statement of P.W. 11 in his deposition. In cross-examination he stated that he did not seize any paper about the ownership of the house from where the snatched Hero Honda Motorcycle was recovered. 21. P.W.13, Prasenjit Banerjee, Additional I.C., Bally P.S. as well as the Investigating Officer in this case stated that he perused the F.I.R., visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map with index, recorded statements of the available witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seized registration certificate of the motorcycle on 28th June, 2010. On 5th July, 2010 he recovered the folio bag containing its articles from Andul Purbapara, P.S. Sankrail by getting information from Gurudas Mukherjee in presence of witnesses. He arrested Barun Hazra on 3rd September, 2010 and from his possession he seized one black colour micro max mobile which was snatched away from the complainant. He prayed before the learned Magistrate to hold T.I. Parade, which was held at Howrah Correctional Home, where the complainant identified the accused Barun Hazra. He also interrogated Surajit Roy, Palash Bayen and Rabi Dey. 22. On perusal of the evidence on record I find that there is no indication in the First Information Report that the accused persons were to be identified. Since the incident took place on 27th June, 2010 at about 8.30 p.m., the place of occurrence was dark and it was not possible to identify the accused persons. 22. On perusal of the evidence on record I find that there is no indication in the First Information Report that the accused persons were to be identified. Since the incident took place on 27th June, 2010 at about 8.30 p.m., the place of occurrence was dark and it was not possible to identify the accused persons. P.W.1 could not identify the appellants in Court and the police had shown the appellants to P.W.1 while they were in thana lock-up. From the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 it appears that as per instruction of the police they put their signature on the seizure list and nothing was recovered in their presence. There was no witness that the mobile was seized from the appellants. Moreover, the address of the accused Barun Hazra in the T.I. Parade does not tally with the address in the seizure list. The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellants under Section 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code but the seizure witnesses in their evidence denied knowledge as regards the recovery of articles during investigation by the police. In my view, the learned Trial Judge has erred in concluding that the prosecution proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 23. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge is thus quashed and set aside. 24. It appears from the record that the appellant Barun Hazra @ Chottu was granted bail by order dated 5th April, 2012 and the appellant Palash Bayen has served out his sentence. Therefore, the appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them and their bail bonds are discharged. 25. Copy of the judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 26. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.