Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the learned APP for the State.

2. The Appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 r/w. 397 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for six months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Complainant - PW-1 Maheshkumar Parmeshwarlal Khedwal was distributing Diwali bonus in his office, at that time, 7 to 8 persons entered the office and took out revolvers and knives and on the point of that threatened the Complainant and took away the cash which was to be distributed by him. The Appellants were arrested in connection with another robbery which had taken place and during the investigation and interrogation, they confessed that they had also committed the robbery which had taken place in the office of the Complainant. The Appellants were arrested on 28.11.1997 by the Dombi vali Police. Charge was framed against the Appellants. The Appellants not pleaded guilty to the said charge. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses. out of which, two witnesses are the eye-witnesses to the said incident viz. PW-1 and PW-3. Test identification parade was held after two months on 28.1.1998. Only PW-1 attended the test identification parade. The other eye-witnesses did not attend the test identification parade. PW-1 identified the Appellants in the test identification parade and also identified them in the Court. PW-3 also identified the Appellants in the Court. There were recovery of cash amount of Rs.10,000/- from the accused. On the basis of the statements of PW1 and PW-3 and on account of the identification of the Appellants in the test identification parade, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, convicted the accused under section 395 r/w. 397 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of, Rs.2,000/- each and. in default, to suffer further R.I. for six months.

4. Shri Gale, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that no reliance could be placed in the test identification parade. Firstly because, there is a gross delay in holding the test identification parade. Secondly, there was no reason given for the delay caused in holding test identification parade. Thirdly, it was submitted that the guidelines laid down under the Manual for holding the test identification parade were not followed by the Executive Magistrate, who held the test identification, parade. It was then submitted that the Investigating Officer had shown the photographs of the accused-Appellants therein before the test identification parade was held and. therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said test identification parade report. He invited my attention to the cross examination of PW-9, Mr. Suresh Babu Talbhandar, the Investigating Officer who had investigated in the said case. He submitted that the Investigating Officer had admitted that he had shown the photographs of the offenders to the complainant. He submitted that the specific ground to that effect was also taken in the appeal memo.

5. After having heard both the learned counsel at length and after going through the evidence on record and impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the Appellants. In the present case, there are two eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution viz. PW-1 and PW-3. The test identification parade of the accused was held on 28.1.1998 and there is much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellants that reliance could not be placed on the test identification parade report in view of the admission given by the Investigating Officer. It is a settled position in law that the purpose of holding a test identification parade is to