JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 and 02.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, First Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Case No. 233(04)2013 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 01(05)14 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 07.01.2013 at about 6.40 a.m. Subash Khatuya (P.W. 17) was driving a lorry bearing No.WB 29A 5124 being accompanied with his helper Gurupada Bera (P.W.1) and one Sk. Bablu (P.W.2), representative of businessmen who had hired them to transport human hair to Shalimar, Howrah. At about 7.15 a.m. two vehicles, one white coloured and another sky-blue coloured Maruti car intercepted the lorry and 6-7 miscreants alighted from the said vehicles. They physically assaulted Subash and his helper Gorupada and dragged them inside the white coloured vehicle while Bablu was dragged inside the Suzuki car. Thereafter, they were drived to Lodhasuli jungle where the miscreants left them tied by ropes to standing trees. Somehow they escaped and went to Lodhasuli P.S. Thereafter, they went to Tamluk P.S. where first information report was registered by Subhas resulting in institution of the present case. 3. In the course of investigation the appellants were arrested and were identified by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 17 during T.I. Parade examination. On 13.01.2013, 22 bags of human hair were recovered from a vehicle bearing no. WB 33-B 4782 driven by Sk. Khaibar and 33 bags of human hair were subsequently seized on the leading statement of Sk. Khaibar. The seized articles appear to have been handed over to the custody of P.W.s 6 and 7 who claimed to be its owner. 4. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District and Session Judge, First Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur for trial and disposal. 5. Charges were framed against the appellants and one Monir Mohammad under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the defence of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Charges were framed against the appellants and one Monir Mohammad under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the defence of the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Their identification in Court during T.I. Parade by P.W.s 1, 2 and 17 were of little substance as they had been shown to the witnesses while in police custody. 6. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined twenty-nine witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 and 02.09.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. They were, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and co-accused Monir Mohammad was acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 7. Ms. Gomes and Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsels appearing for the appellants argued that the identification of the appellants in Court & during T.I. Parade is extremely doubtful. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 17 admitted that they had seen the appellants at the police station prior to T.I. Parade examination. None of the witnesses had disclosed the physical features including age, etc of miscreants either in the first information report or in their statements to the police. Hence, their identification of the appellants in Court cannot be relied upon. The seized articles were not produced and identified during trial. In fact the Trial Judge acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 412 IPC. Hence, there is no legally admissible evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged crime. 8. Mr. Maiti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W. 17 deposed that he and others had seen the appellants at the P.O. for the first time and thereafter in the police station and at correctional home. Hence, identification of the appellants by the said witnesses as the dacoits who committed robbery at the place of occurrence is wholly established. Soon after the occurrence, stolen property was recovered from the appellants. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence do not call for interference and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 17 claimed to be present at the time of alleged dacoity. P.W. 17 is the driver of the vehicle bearing No.WB 29A 5124 which was carrying human hair to Shalimar, Howrah for various businesses. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence do not call for interference and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 17 claimed to be present at the time of alleged dacoity. P.W. 17 is the driver of the vehicle bearing No.WB 29A 5124 which was carrying human hair to Shalimar, Howrah for various businesses. P.W. 2 was the representative of such businessmen and P.W. 1 was the laborer assisting P.W. 17 in driving the lorry. 10. All the witnesses deposed that at 7.15 a.m. when the vehicle had reached Nimtouri High Road, two vehicles, one white in colour and another sky coloured Maruti Suzuki vehicle, stopped the aforesaid vehicle on the road. 6-7 miscreants alighted from the vehicles and had forcibly removed the said witnesses from the lorry carrying human hair. P.Ws.1 and 17 were forced into the white coloured vehicle while P.W.2 was forcefully put into the sky coloured Maruti Suzuki car. Thereafter they were driven to a nearby jungle and the miscreants tied them to standing trees and left. They somehow untied themselves and went to the local police station. Although they initially went to Lodhasuli outpost, PW17 lodged FIR (Ext.9) at Tamluk police station. Although such conduct on the part of P.W.17 cannot be said to be unnatural, it is important to note that the said witness had not disclosed features and other particulars relating to age, built and height of the miscreants in the first information report. All the witnesses in cross-examination admitted that they remained in the police station for a number of days upon suspicion that they may have had a hand in the dacoity. During their stay at the police station, the appellants had been arrested and they had seen the appellants in the said police station prior to T.I. parade. 11. Under such circumstances, identification of the appellants by the said witnesses during T.I. parade as well as in court loses significance. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrates (P.W.23 and 28) who conducted T.I. Parade, had noted their T.I. Parade reports (Exts.11 and 13) that the appellants had complained that they had been shown to the witnesses at the police station. Trial Judge, however, relied on the identification of the aforesaid witnesses on the premises that P.W.17 had claimed that they had seen the miscreants for the first time at the place of occurrence. 12. Trial Judge, however, relied on the identification of the aforesaid witnesses on the premises that P.W.17 had claimed that they had seen the miscreants for the first time at the place of occurrence. 12. I am unimpressed by such reasoning. P.W.17 had not described the features and other particulars of the miscreants in the first information report. P.Ws.1 and 2 also did not describe the features of the miscreants in earlier statements to the Investigating Officer (P.W.29). In the absence of the description of the miscreants in their earlier statements to police, it is highly unsafe to rely on the ipse dixit of the witnesses that they had seen the appellants at the place of occurrence. It is relevant to note such identification of the appellants both in Court as well as in T.I. Parade admitted that they had seen the appellants in the police station prior to the T.I. Parade Examination has to be taken with a pinch of salt as the witnesses. 13. It was incumbent on the Investigating Agency to ensure that the identity of the accused persons is not disclosed to the aforesaid witnesses in the course of investigation prior to holding T.I. Parade. Failure to do so has struck at the root of the prosecution case with regard to the authenticity of the identification of the appellants by the said witnesses which is the primary basis to come to a finding of guilt against them. 14. It is pertinent to note that nothing was placed on record in the course of trial to establish that human hair recovered from a vehicle driven by appellant Sk. Khaiber is the stolen alamat in the instant case. In the course of investigation the seized hair were returned to P.W.6. No steps were taken prior to return of the seized alamat to prepare inventory or take photographs/samples of the seized articles and/or to produce such articles during trial. 15. There is no legally admissible evidence on record that the articles seized from the possession or upon showing of the appellants during investigation were stolen property. In fact the trial judge had acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 412 IPC. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellants in terms of illustration (a) of section 114 of the Evidence Act. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. In fact the trial judge had acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 412 IPC. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellants in terms of illustration (a) of section 114 of the Evidence Act. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. 16. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. 17. Appellants shall be released from custody forthwith upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court which shall continue for six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if not wanted in any other cases. 18. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. 19. Before parting, I note with concern the lackadaisical manner in which the seized alamat had been returned to P.Ws.6 and 7 without following adequate safeguards relating to the preservation and ensuring production of alamat in court during trial. 20. It may not be out of place to refer the directions given by the Apex Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 for ensuring preservation and production of seized articles which are returned to the complainant pending enquiry/trial:- "For this purpose, if material on record indicates that such articles belong to the complainant at whose house theft, robbery or dacoity has taken place, then seized articles be handed over to the complainant after: (1) preparing detailed proper panchnama of such articles; (2) taking photographs of such articles and a bond that such articles would be produced if required at the time of trial; and (3) after taking proper security". 21. No steps were taken to inventorize or take photographs of the seized articles before returning to P.W.6 in the present case. Efforts have also not been made to ensure production of such articles during trial. The aforesaid steps ought to have been taken by the court below to ensure preservation and production of the best evidence, that is seized alamat, during trial. 22. Efforts have also not been made to ensure production of such articles during trial. The aforesaid steps ought to have been taken by the court below to ensure preservation and production of the best evidence, that is seized alamat, during trial. 22. In order to ensure avoidance of similar errors which may adversely affect the fate of future prosecutions, Registrar General is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to all Criminal Courts in the State, so that the concerned judges/magistrates manning such courts do not fail to take appropriate measures in terms of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra) while returning seized alamat to claimants so as to ensure preservation and production of such alamat during trial. 23. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. I agree.