( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Ganga Singh, Hodal and Pratap, who have been convicted under Section 379, I. P. C. and each of whom has been sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment. The only question, which arises in revision is whether the two Courts below were justified in acting upon the evidence of identification with particular reference to the circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion that that evidence, which was the only evidence against the applicants, was sufficient to establish the charge.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story waa as follows: On the night between the 27th and 28th of january, 1954, three cattle belonging to one Ram Chandra were stolen from his house. The matter was detected some time during the night and a party consisting of several men left the village in search of the cattle and they followed a track which indicated that the cattle had been taken in a certain direction. The party followed the footprints of the cattle. It was said that at about 5 in the morning when the party reached a place known as Mania Khera at a distance of about 2 and half miles from the house of the complainant after having crossed a certain bridge, they noticed that two men were holding the cattle with ropes and another two were driving the cattle from behind. The miscreants on seeing the chasing party left the cattle and ran away and could not be apprehended.

( 3 ) THE complainant lodged a report on 28-1-1954, at 2 P. M. the police station having been at a distance of about four miles from his village. In that report suspicion was raised against another ram Chandra of the same village and, no indication had been given in the report as to who those four men were who, according to the complainant, had been noticed taking away the cattle. Indeed, the Sub-Inspector stated in his evidence in the trial Court that the witnesses of the chase who had been examined by him did not furnish any clue or description of the persons who had been seen taking away the cattle. How, therefore, the police arrested Hodal and Ganga Singh on 12-2-1954, and Pratap on 20-2-1954, who are all residents of other localities, is shrouded in mystery. It appears, however, that Hodal and Ganga Singh were enlarged on bail after their arrest and so was Pratap.

( 4 ) THE identification proceedings of the first two had been held on 3-3-1954, and the identification proceedings of Pratap were held on 13-4-1954 when they were already on bail. Ganga Singh was correctly identified by seven witnesses, and Hodal by seven witnesses, and pratap by four witnesses, who did not commit any mistake. One of these witnesses was raghunath Singh. He was in the service of the zamindar and he admitted that be used to visit the village of Ganga Singh where he had been on a number of occasions in order to collect rent from the father of Ganga Singh. It is therefore not inconceivable that Raghu-nath Singh witness knew or had the occasion to know Ganga Singh applicant from before. If Ganga Singh was a known person the omission of his name from the first information report cannot at all be excused. Moreover, it seems to me that when the accused persons were arrested and the only evidence against them was intended to be the evidence of identification, their release on bail was not at all dictated by prudence and should not have been allowed. The bail application of Hodal and Ganga Singh and the order passed on such an application could not be traced out from the record. But the application of Pratap and the order passed thereon by the learned. Magistrate indicate something very astounding and, at any rate, they reveal that the learned Magistrate did not bring his judicial mind to bear upon the matter when he thought that Pratap could be released. It appears that the Magistrate was led into that error partly because of the undertaking held out by counsel for Pratap to the effect that if Pratap be admitted to bail, he would not raise any