A. K. SRIVASTAVA ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision under Sections 397/4401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by revisionist Kapil Kumar against the order dated 8. 6. 1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby a direction was made for framing of charges against him and also against order dated 25. 7. 1995 passed by Shri J. P. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge by which a charge has been framed against the revisionist for allegedly having committed an offence under Section 395/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Cri. R. 155/95 and Crl. M. No. 3069/95 ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as they appear to be are that on 18. 51991, some unknown persons intruded into the house of complainant Anjna Gupta at B-1/146, Paschimvihar, Delhi and ransacked the house. They are said to have looted cash and jewellery. After the FIR was lodged, one Mohsin Akhtar was arrested by the police on 16. 5. 1992 in an Arms case and on interrogation, the police received a disclosure statement from him about the robbery committed in the house of said Smt. Anjana Gupta. It is said that he disclosed that one Vimal Kumar had given him the information about the riches of the family of Smt Anjana Gupta and also that during the day time only the ladies of the house remain in the house. Said Mohsin Akhtar also informed the Police about the names of his accomplishes in the said dacoity as Saleem, Mohammed Aslam, Hanif, Tasleem, Aslam, Mohd, Gulfam. On this information, they were also arrested. Thereafter said Vimal Kumar was also arrested by the Police on 20th May, 1992. He was interrogated and he informed the Police that Kapil Kumar (the revisionist here) had given him the information that the aforesaid house of Smt. Anjana Gupta belongs to the owner of Laxmi Trading Company, who were sufficiently rich and that only ladies used to be present in the house during the day time. Crl. R. 155/95 and Crl. M. No. 3069/95 Vimal Kumar is also said to have admitted that he had conveyed that information to accused persons Saleem and Mohsain Akhtar and had also shown them the house in question. Crl. R. 155/95 and Crl. M. No. 3069/95 Vimal Kumar is also said to have admitted that he had conveyed that information to accused persons Saleem and Mohsain Akhtar and had also shown them the house in question. ( 3 ) SINCE as per the evidence with the investigation, there was no direct evidence against the revisionist Kapil Kumar, he was chargesheet for allegedly having committed offence punishable under Section 395/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) IT appears that the learned Lower Court has also, on the same basis, framed a charge against the revisionist under the aforesaid Sections. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently urges before me that the prosecution has no evidence at all with it to show that there was any meeting of mind between the revisionist and the culprits; namely, Saleem, Mohammed Aslam, Hanif, Tasleem, Aslam, Mohd. Gulfam, who are said to have actually committed the said dacoity. According to him, merely giving an information to a third person (other than the culprits) that persons XY are very rich and they own a particular house where during day time only ladies remain there, would not amount to any criminal conspiracy between him and the actual culprits. He further says that the only evidence with the prosecution Crl. R. 155/95 and Crl. M. No. 3069/95 is a disclosure statement of co-accused, who himself is not one of the persons, who is said to have committed dacoity. ( 6 ) WHEN the learned counsel for the State was asked as to what is corroborative evidence with the investigation to show that the revisionist had conspired with the alleged dacoits for commission of the said dacoity, he after seeing the record, said that the only evidence against the revisionist is that of the disclosure statement of said Vimal Kumar. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the case against the revisionist appears to be too remote a case in which, in my opinion, no charge should have been framed. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) THE revision is allowed. The orders dated 8. 6. 1995 and 25. 7. 1995 are quashed and the revisionist is discharged. ( 9 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.