Evidence obtained through illegal detention is inadmissible.

1. - This appeal is directed against the trial courts, order dated January 8, 1980 convicting the appellants under section 458, 395 and 397 I.P.C. and the order dated January 9, 1980, whereby each of the appellants was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 458 IPC. and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month under sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrently in respect of each of the appellants.

2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On the night between September 4 and 5, 1978, at about 10.30 or 11 P.M. 8 persons armed with deadly weapons like guns and pistols committed dacoity in the house of Hukam Chand P.W. situate in Village Nagli and decamped with cash amounting to Rs. 8210/-. and gold and silver ornaments. The report of the occurrence Ex. P/1 was lodged with the Laxmangarh police by Hukam Chand himself in September 5, 1978 at 5 a.m. He mentioned in the F.I.R. that Padma Jat and Brijbhan were among the culprits who committed this crime.

3. Sub-Inspector Gurwant Singh (PW 11) immediately took up investigation and inspected the scene of crime. He recovered 8 empty cartridges from there. He arrested Mangla Yadram and Prakash, the present appellants, vide arrest memo Ex. P/11 Ex. P/12 and Ex/13, respectively, on October 21, 1978 immediately after effecting the arrest of the appellants, Gurwant Singh kept them Baparda so that none of the witnesses could see them. They were immediately sent to the judicial lock-up under orders of the Magistrate concerned. The test identification parade in the case was held by a Magistrate, Ratanlal (PW 8) on October 31, 1978. The memorandum of proceedings regarding the said parade, as prepared by the learned Magistrate, is Ex. P/4. It is alleged that Hukam Chand Bhagwati and Jayram correctly identified all the three appellants at the said parade.

4. The prosecution story further goes that the appellant Yadram made a disclosure statement. Ex. P/16, on November 14, 1978 as a consequence of which stolen property har Article 1, and bangles Article 2, were recovered vide memo Ex. P/19. Similarly Mangla and Prakash made disclosure statements. Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18 respectively, on the even date resulting in recovery of stolen property, naveri Article 5 and Kankati Article 6, from the possession of Mangal vide memo Ex. P/20 and stolen property jhumki Article 4 and santh Article 3 from the possession of Prakash, vide recovery memo Ex. P/21.

5. Relying on the evidence regarding identification and recovery of the stolen property as mentioned above the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

6. After hearing both sides, and examining the evidence on record quite carefully, I am of opinion that the impugned order of conviction and sentence cannot possibly be sustained. The test identification parade was held as stated above, by Ratan Lal PW 8 on October 31, 1978. Guawant Singh (PW 11) the investigating Officer would have us believe that he arrested the appellants on October 21, 1978 and that he obtained orders and sent them to the Judicial lock up baparada. The prosecution is thus trying to establish that the test identification parade held on October 31 1978, and the identification of the appellants therein by Kukum Chand, Bhagwati and Jayaram PWs is not open to any doubt or objection. The appellants complained in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that they had been arrested by the police on September 26, 1978 and that they were kept in the police custody without lawful authority for more than a month before they were sent to the judicial lock up. The defence in that connection referred to a news-paper clipping containing the