( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the State in a dacoity case. The Additional Sessions Judge of Sitapur acquitted the fourteen accused respondents, who were prosecuted under Section 395. P. Code, but this decision aggrieved the State and it has filed this, appeal,

( 2 ) THE main ground on which the trial court acquitted the accused-respondents was that only two witnesses were examined before the committing Magistrate and the identification by one of these witnesses was totally unreliable. It ignored to take into consideration the identification by the other witnesses who were produced for the first time before the trial court in view of a Divisional bench decision of this Court in Lalla Singh v. The State, Cr. Appeal No. 29l of 1958, D/13- 12-1959 (All ). The Divisional Bench consisted of Mr. Justice James and one of us and the decision was dictated by Mr. Justice James. One of us who sat on that Bench concurred with that decision. It was observed in that decision: no witness of identification can be deemed reliable unless he is found to consistently identify an accused person in the jail and in the Courts of the Committing Magistrate and Sessions Judge, and day-to-da