Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the opposite party. 2. By the impugned judgment opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, have been acquitted in session trial No. 406/85 for the charges under Sections 364 and 363-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have examined the impugned judgment and I find that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused had any hand in kidnapping the child in question and in taking him to Delhi. 4. The entire case proceeded on the basis of confession made by opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. 5. From the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has scrutinised each and every piece of evidence and he has not found cogent evidence warranting conviction of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. Even in the evidence of the informant (PW 8), there is nothing to connect opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 with the alleged crime save and except their confessional statement made before the Panches. From the judgment I find that Panches before whom the alleged confession was made was also examined but they have not supported the prosecution version that in fact the accused had confessed before them admitting their guilt. 6. Having gone through the judgment impugned, I see no reason to interfere with the same. This application is accordingly, dismissed. 7. However,this order of dismissal shall not affect the pending procoeding with regard to the custody of the child.