Sat Pal ( 1 ) THE present revision petition has been filed againstthe order dated 18/09/1992 passed by the learned Additionalsessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 24/1991. By the aforesaid orderthe learned Additional Sessions Judge held that, prima fade, a case againstall the accused including the petitioners is made oat for charging them undersections 302/102-B of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid order has beenchallenged by two of the accused, namely, Ashok Kumar and Kuldip Kumar. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that deceased Raj Kumarand one Ravi were in the employment of petitioner Ashok Kumar, who wasrunning a chit fund company. The petitioner Ashok Kumar lodged a reportwith the police against the aforesaid two persons on 8/03/1990 inrespect of the alleged mis-appropriation of Rs. 60,000. 00. After the aforesaidamount was returned to the petitioner Ashok Kumar, he gave a statement tothe police on 22/03/1990 that he did not want to press the case andaccordingly the case was filed. ( 3 ) IF is alleged that petitioner Kuldip Kumar visited the house of thedeceased on 15/06/1990 and introduced the co-accused Anoop Singh @bittoo and told the deceased that said Bittoo wanted to get his vehicle financed and he should help him for the said purpose. It is further alleged thatco-accused Bittoo had been visiting the house of the deceased thereafter, andon 28/06/1990 when the deceased was getting out of barbar s shop hewas stabbed by three persons including Bittoo. ( 4 ) MR. Naseem, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the charge has been framed against the petitioners on the basis ofthe statement of Smt. Ramwati and the disclosure statements of thepetitioners. He, however, submitted that no recovery has been made as aresult of the alleged disclosure statements of the petitioners and as such thesediclosure statements cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that norole has been assigned to petitioner Ashok Kumar even in the state ment ofthe wife of the deceased. He further submitted that the role assigned topetitioner Kuldip Kumar was only to the extent that be had introducedbittoo on 15/06/1990 and that too for the purpose of financing a vehiclethrough the deceased. He, therefore, contended that no charge could beframed against the petitioners. ( 5 ) MR. He further submitted that the role assigned topetitioner Kuldip Kumar was only to the extent that be had introducedbittoo on 15/06/1990 and that too for the purpose of financing a vehiclethrough the deceased. He, therefore, contended that no charge could beframed against the petitioners. ( 5 ) MR. Bahri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, fairlyconceded that in the present case disclosure statements of the petitionerscould not be relied upon as no recovery has been made pursuant to the saiddisclosure statements under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Evidenceact. He also could not point out any role assigned to the petitioner Ashokkumar in terms of the statement of the wife of the deceased. He, however,submitted that petitioner Kuldip Kumar had brought the co-accused Bittooto the residence of the deceased on 15/16-6-1990 and on the next day alsoand as such, prima fade, a case is made out against petitioner Kuldip Kumar. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions madeby the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also perused the statementof Smt. Ramwati, wife of the deceased. From the said statement I find thatno role has been assigned to the petitioner Ashok Kumar. As regards thepetitioner Kuldip Kumar, from the said statement, it is clear that he had brought co-accused Bittoo thrice to the residence of the deceased Raj Kumara few days before the date of occurrence. In her statement Smt. Ramwatihas also alleged that on 27-6-1990 when deceased had gone to the house ofkuldip Kumar and told Kuldip Kumar as to why he was sending Bittoo andother persons to his house again and again, Kuldip Kumar was foundperplexed. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion, the revision petition in respectof petitioner Ashok Kumar is allowed and the impugned order for framingcharge against him under Section 302/120b Indian Penal Code is set aside. As regardspetitioner Kuldip Kumar, the revision petition is dismissed. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that the observations made here in abovewill have no bearing on the merit of the case. The lower Court records besent back forthwith.