SRI NIWAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Saxena, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA who agree that if this Court so finds proper, this appeal may be decided on merits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant, he already had undergone the sentence of seven years but even then has not been released from jail. He has filed evidence to show that the aforesaid sentence has been carried out and the contention appears to be correct also. It is therefore, unnecessary to keep him inside the jail,, rather it is an illegality of serious nature if in spite of his having served out the sentence, he continued to be behind the bars.

(3.) THE case of the appellant stands on a much stronger footing, as the period between the date of the occurrence the holding of the take identification proceedings was about six months and about four" months in between the date of his arrest and the holding of the test identification proceedings. THEre being no explanation at all of the inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution, the evidence of identification against the appel lant, was unworthy of credit and should have been disbelieved by the learned lower court. In view of this state of affairs, it was not neces sary to enter into other questions involved in this appeal, which was liable to be allowed.