JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated June 11, 1992 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, whereby charge under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act has been framed against him. 2. The prosecution case is, that the Head Constable Kesar Singh, accompanied by Hari Mohan and Santu Singh constables, was patrolling on June 20, 1989, When they were near the Bus Stand Baghal, they saw a jeep bearing registration No. MGR 1530. They wanted to stop the jeep, but the driver, seeing the police party, took the jeep with a fast speed without stopping it. This strengthened the suspicion, which the police party had. It is alleged that after some distance, the jeep was stopped, and on a search the police personnel found 15 gunny bags containing country made liquor in bottles. As per the prosecution case, the jeep was being driven by the co-accused Bhura Ram, and the co-accused Richpal was also found sitting in it. Against the petitioner, the accusation is that he ran away after getting down from the jeep and the name of the petitioner was given to the police party by co-accused Bhura Ram.The prosecution case further is, that in the jeep the liquer was being transported without a valid licence. It is alleged that the goods belonged the co-accused Richpal, but at some places it has been stated that the goods belonged to the co-accused Richpal and the petitioner. 3. FIR of the incident was ledged at the police Station, Renwal by the Head Constable Kesar Singh. After registration of the case under section 16/54 of the Excise Act on 20-1-89 the investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 21-1-89, i.e. the next day of the occurrence. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Bhura Ram, the driver of the jeep, Richpal son of Daluram and the petitioner Nagar Mal, The learned Magistrate by the impugned order framed the charge against the petitioner and the other co-accused under section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 4. The order framing the charge has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that there is no evidence on the basis of which the charge could have been framed. 4. The order framing the charge has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that there is no evidence on the basis of which the charge could have been framed. Learned counsel argued that the police has examined three witnesses under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and none of them has identified the petitioner to be in the jeep. He also submitted that no identification parade was held to get the petitioner identified from the witnesses. Thus, according to the learned counsel. there is no evidence that the petitioner was one of the occupants in the jeep in which liquor was being transported. It was also argued that simply because the co-accused Bhura Ram staled to the police that the petitioner was also in the jeep, and that he ran away after seeing the police party, the charge could not be framed against him. According to the learned counsel. if such a statement of the co-accused is accepted as his confession, even than any such statement against the other co-accused can at the most be considered in evidence, if there is other independent evidence to connect the other accused with the crime. It was also submitted that a confession of the co-accused is no evidence to connect any other accused with the crime. 5. On the other hand, the learned P.P. submitted that though the evidence of the police personnel may not establish the identity of the petitioner to be one of the occupants in the jeep, but, the statement of the co-accused is sufficient to frame a charge against the petitioner. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submissions. As stated earlier, the petitioner was not arrested from the spot. There is no evidence of identification connecting him with the crime, inasmuchas, none of the three witnesses has identified the petitioner to be one of the occupants. The only evidence is the statement of the co-accused Bhura Ram naming the petitioner to be one of the occupants, and that too I to the police, is hardly any evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime Even the statement of a co-accused implicating himself and some other. person can be considered against the other accused, but this is no evidence to connect. him with the crime. person can be considered against the other accused, but this is no evidence to connect. him with the crime. Therefore, without going into the merits the case- as to whether the statement of Bhura Ram is reliable or not, suffice it to say that no charge could have been framed against the petitioner on the basis of that statement. The legal position is now well settled that a confession of the co-accused can be considered against the other accused, but it is not an evidence on the basis of which either a charge can be framed. or a conviction can be sustained. Hence, I have no option but to quash the charge framed against the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 11-6-92 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Like. framing a charge against the petitioner is hereby set aside,Petition allowed. *******