1 APL 738.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 738 OF 2011 Mr. Umesh Ranchhod Parmar & Ors. ... Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. Avinash Kamkhedkar for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. :- Heard learned Senior Counsel for the Accused - Applicant. 2. The Application is not pressed to the extent of Applicant No.2 Navnath, Accused No.3 - Vijay, Accused No.4 – Pratap Police Constable. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the material collected by the Investigator would seldom rope accused - Applicant to C.R.No.331 of 2007 of Loni Kalibhor Police Station, Pune. 4. The learned Senior Counsel read FIR of the Informant, statement of Advani, employer of the Applicant, and the test 2 APL 738.11.sxw identification parade conducted on 6.6.2007. He submits, reading the three events in juxtaposition, it is apparent, the Accused - Applicant was known to the Informant. He should have refer name of the Informant in the FIR and the Accused - Applicant having noticed at the Swargate Bus Stand by itself would not be sufficient to brand him as a culprit in the matter. 5. At this stage of the matter, when the evidence is not to be scanned at material length, I find there is sufficient material against the Accused - Applicant as in the statement of the employer Advani, there was an extra judicial confession of the Accused - Applicant of committing decoity in the early morning with the police constable posing as CBI Officer. The Applicant was identified in the test identification parade. Even otherwise, law on the test identification parade is well settled. It involves Section 9 of Evidence Act. Identification of the suspects in the Court is of imperative nature and any mistake or omission in the parade will not tantamount to distort the case. 6. At this stage of the matter, the learned Judge being competent to decide even alteration of charge in terms of Section 216 of Cr.P.C., I do not see any error in the orders passed declining discharge in terms of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the exercise before this Court by Criminal Application No.738 of 2011 is rejected. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 APL 738.11.sxw