( 1 ) THIS case has been laid before this Bench for decision of the question whether "the memorandum of identification proceedings held by a Magistrate acting under Section 164, Cr. P. C. is admissible without proof". The question arose before Kailash Prasad, J. , during the hearing of the appeal and he referred it to a Full Bench because of a conflict between Asharfi v. State, 1960 All LJ 595 : (AIR 1961 All 153) and the State v. Chandrapal Govt. Appeal No. 1931 of 1961, DA 18-8-1962 (All ). In the latter case Uniyal and Gyanendra Kumar, JJ. , without noticing the decision in Asharfis case 1960 All LJ 595 : (AIR 1961 All 153) held, contrary to what was held in that case, that Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to a memorandum of identification proceedings prepared by a Magistrate and that it cannot be presumed to be genuine and must be proved to be so by evidence. Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 1962 is connected with this appeal. In Criminal Revision No. 1291 of 1963 the only question raised on behalf of the applicant was whether a memorandum of identification proceedings was admissible in evidence on being presumed to be genuine under Section 80 of the Evidence Act and our brother bishambhar Dayal doubting the correctness of 1960 All LJ 595 : (AIR 1961 All 153) referred the case to a larger Bench, Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 1963 being with Criminal Revision No. 1291 of 1963 has been referred to a larger Bench alone with it. (1a) Section 80 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:-"whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence. . . . . . . . . given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorised by Law to take such evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to he signed by any judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume that the document is genuine that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken. " there are bewildering numbers of "and" and "or", but the section can be split up into two parts, one relating to a record or memorandum of evidence whether given in a judicial proceeding or before an officer authorised by law to take such evidence and the other relating to a statement or confession by a prisioner or accused person. A record or memorandum of evidence or a statement or confession can be presumed to be genuine if it is taken in accordance with law and purports to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate or an officer authorised by law to take such evidence. In these cases we are concerned with documents purporting to be memoranda of statements made by persons to Magistrates to the effect that they would identify the persons who committed certain offences and of their pointing out certain persons as the offenders. The memoranda show that the persons pointed out the offenders when standing mixed with other persons in what is known as identification parade; they simply pointed them out and did not orally state that they were the persons who committed the offences. But a statement can be made by signs also and their pointing out certain persons after saying orally that they would point out the offenders amounts to their saying that the persons pointed out were the offenders. In effect, therefore, the memoranda are of statements made by persons before Magistrate to the effect that certain persons had committed certain offences. If Section 80 applies to them it applies to them only on the ground that they are memoranda of evidence given by witnesses in judicial proceedings or before officers authorised by law to take such evidence. They are not statements or confessions by prisoners or accused persons. It was not contended before us that tha words "by any prisoner