ORDER K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - This revision has been initiated by this Court suo moto on the report of Mr. Justice R.C. Patnaik against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Mayurbhanj, Baripada in this case the facts are sumnnrised as follows: The complainant on the information of whom G.R. Case No. 212/83 was initiated was a dealer in electronic musical instruments, such as, taperecorders, radios, transistors etc. On 15-7-1933 in the early morning he was informed that there was theft in his shop in the night before which was under lock and key. He found that articles won about Rs. 40,000/- were stolen after breaking open of the lock. He reported the matter to police and after necessary investigation G.R. Case No. 212/83 was filed by the State against the present Petitioner Nalini Barik along with five other accused persons and the present Petitioner along with others was tried u/s 457 and Section 380, IPC by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairangpur. After perusing the L.C.R. which was called for, I find that exceping the statements of accused Manjit Singh, Rama Mahanta and Chitta, recorded u/s 164, Criminal Procedure Code there was no other evidence available on record connecting accused, Nalini with the crime. It is only Manjit Singh, Rama Mahanta and Chitta who stated in their statements u/s 164, Criminal Procedure Code. that they along with Gopal and Nalini committed theft of the tape-recorders and radio from the shop in question from Rajgangpur in between 14th/15th July after breaking the lock and admitted their guilt. In a case reported in Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar, their Lordships have held thus: x x x x In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon a confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the Court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the Court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. A confession of a co-accused is obviously a piece of evidence of a very weak type. A confession of a co-accused is obviously a piece of evidence of a very weak type. It does not indeed come within the definition of 'evidence' u/s 3 of the Evidence Act. It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested in cross-examination. It is therefore a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver, which is not subject to any of those infirmities. Section 30, however, provides that the Court may take the confession into consideration and thereby, makes it evidence on which the Court may act; but the section does not say that the confession amounts to proof. Clearly there must be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case, it can be put into the scale and weighed with the other evidence. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30. the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act, Therefore, in dealing with a case against an accused person, the Court cannot start with the confession of co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilty which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. This being the position of law, the conviction of Nalini Barik cannot be justified on the basis of the confessional statement of the thee accused persons alone there being no other evidence on record to connect him with the crime. In view of this, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against Nalini Barik are set aside and he be set at liberty forthwith. The revision is accordingly disposed of.