K. M. PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) ANANT Kumar has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, framing charges under Section 395/397, I. P. C. against the petitioner in S. T. No. 104/84. ( 2 ) I have heard the parties' Counsel. The petitioner's contention is that it is a case of no evidence and there was no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame the charges as said above. He has described the circumstances as below : (i) He is not named in the F. I. R. (ii) No identification proceedings have taken place and consequently there was no occasion for his being identified in an identification parade. (iii) No recovery of articles has taken place from his possession. (iv) No witness has named him under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and consequently it was a case of no evidence and the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in framing charges against him. ( 3 ) I have heard the Counsel for the State, Shri S. B. Mishra. From his arguments I could guess that he was feeling difficult to defend the case and consequently he relied on, Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act saying that the co-accused has named the petitioner in the statement before the Police. Obviously, it will be a week evidence. The statement of a co-accused in implicating himself in the crime and also one another suffers from many defects. Firstly, it is a confession made before the Police Officer. Secondly, his evidence before the Police involving himself in the crime will not be admissible in evidence under Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. It cannot be proved against him and consequently that part of the statement which implicates the applicant, besides him, has also to be looked with great caution. ( 4 ) I would like to quote Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as below : "when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. " the important part of Section is "and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved. " ( 5 ) THE question arises whether the statement given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also implicating third person can be proved legally in the Court. The answer has got to be a simple "no". It will be conflicting with Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. If such evidence or confession cannot be proved then the occasion for utilising that statement against another person does not arise. The admissibility of such evidence under Section 30 depends upon the fact that the confession made by such person affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved. The result is that if the confession cannot be proved and has not been proved then the question for reliance of such statement against another person while framing charge does not arise. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute on this point that the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. nor has he been named by any witness nor any property has been recovered from his possession and in this set of circumstances there appears force in the contention of the petitioner that it was a case of "no evidence" and the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in framing the charges under Sections 395/397, I. P. C. ( 7 ) THE revision is consequently allowed. The order of charge is set aside and the petitioner is discharged. The records be sent back to the Court concerned for further proceedings of the case according to law. Revision allowed. .