SURAJ BHAN AND ORS Vs. STATE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure relates to a proposed identification test. Ganesh Prasad has filed a case of cheating against Suraj Bhan and two others. Ganesh Prasad complainant is a resident of Allahabad. Suraj Bhan and others applicants are all residents of Karvi in district Banda. It is the contention of the accused persons that, the complainant's case is false, and the prosecution witnesses are not in a position to identify the accused persons. Applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are females. The applicants, therefore, pray that a Magistrate of Karvi should be directed to hold an identification parade there. Apparently, prosecution witnesses are unwilling to attend such a parade at Karvi. For purposes off the present application, I shall assume that it will be convenient to hold such an identification parade at Karvi. The question, however, remains whether the witnesses of Allahabad should be compelled to attend such an identification test at Karvi.

(2.) Ordinarily, identification parades are arranged by the police before the case reaches the Court. In such cases an identification parade is a part of the investigation. In those cases it is impossible to treat an identification parade as a judicial proceeding. This Court has got power of control over the judicial functions of Magistrates. This Court cannot control the administrative acts of Magistrates.

(3.) Mr. M.L. Agarwala appearing for the applicants urged that, an identification parade is in the nature of a statement made by a witness before a Court. It may be readily conceded that, an identification parade implies statements by identifying witnesses. During the trial of a case the Magistrate may put questions to a witness in order to judge the ability of the witness to identify an accused person in the dock. But I am unable to agree with Mr. Agarwala that, the Court can compel a witness to go outside the court-room, and give a demonstration in order to show his ability to run.