STATE Vs. RAM SIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Government is of a rather unusual nature.

(2.) It appears that a dacoity case in which 15 accused persons were involved was fixed for hearing in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge on 29th November 1949. On that date only two formal witnesses, i.e., one Badri and another Shri N.K. Roy, Judicial Magistrate, first class, were examined. Badri wag a recovery wifcnes.1 and so far as Shri N.K. Roy was concerned, he was the Magistrate who had conducted the identification proceedings. The first grievance against the learned Sessions Judge is that, during the course of the recording of the statements of these witnesses, the remark was made by him more than once that there was nothing in the case. In his explanation the learned Sessions Judge has categorically denied that he ever made that remark. The affidavit has been filed in this case by the station officer police station Naraini who had investigated the case. We do not know how the station officer came to be present in Court. According to the affidavit, the contents of paras, 1 to 6 and 13 are true to his personal knowledge. There is no counter-affidavit on behalf of the State to challenge the version of the learned Sessions Judge and, in these circumstances, we are bound to accept the version that the learned Sessions Judge has given as correct.

(3.) The second grievance against the learned Sessions Judge is that during the statement of Shri N.K. Roy, Judicial Magistrate, first class, the learned Sessions Judge made the observation that the second identification has got no legal value and was useless. It is urged that by this remark be expressed a definite opinion about the identification evidence upon which the prosecution was relying. The learned Sessions Judge denies having made any such observation. His explanation is that during the course of the examination of the Magistrate who had conducted the identification proceedings it appeared to him in the case before him that the identification proceedings of some of the accused by the same witnesses were held twice. He further states in his explanation that in the first parade no accused could be identified and in the second parade which was held after some time by another Magistrate the same witnesses identified the accused persons. Naturally it was pointed out by one of the counsel for the accused that any identification in the circumstances would be of little or no value. The learned Sessions Judge asked the counsel who was appearing in the case to hunt out authorities on the point and observed that the point would be discussed at length at the time of argument. We see nothing wrong in the line that the learned Sessions Judge adopted. It would certainly have been improper for the learned Sessions Judge to have expressed any definite or final opinion on the identification proceedings, but we do not find on the facts before us that he, in fact, did so.