Order.- The petitioner herein has been convicted for in offence under section 68 (a) of the Mysore Police Act, in C.C. No. 9322 of 1962 on the file of the Additional First-class Magistrate, Bangalore. For that offence, he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The amount of Rs. 3 seized from him, has been ordered to be forfeited to the Government. Sri Devaraju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Court below is vitiated for more reasons than one. It is firstly urged that the learned Magistrate committed an illegality in taking into consideration the confession of the co-accused while determining the guilt of the petitioner. The second contention advanced by him is that the learned Magistrate failed to notice that the oral evidence of P.W.1 is in conflict with the contents of Exhibit P-1 and that he proceeded on the basis that the contents of Exhibit P-1 corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Now coming to the question of law urged by Shri Devaraju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to mention that originally one Silpachary was prosecuted along with the petitioner in C.C. No. 9322 of 1962. That Silpachary pleaded guilty. He was convicted on his own plea. After his conviction, the case proceeded against the petitioner. In determining the guilt of the petitioner, the trial Court has relied on the confession made by the said Silpachary. This appears to be clearly wrong. Before a confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration, under section 30 of the Evidence Act, that co-accused must-have been tried jointly for the same offence with the other accused. Where a co-accused pleads guilty and the Court has accepted his plea and directed his removal from the dock and the trial proceeds against the remaining prisoner alone, the confession by the former is not admissible under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, against the latter. See Emperor v. Keramat Sirdar1. In my judgment, Shri Devaraju is right in his contention that the Court below erred in relying on the confession of the co-accused in determining the guilt of the petitioner. There is also force in the criticism by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate misread the evidence on record. See Emperor v. Keramat Sirdar1. In my judgment, Shri Devaraju is right in his contention that the Court below erred in relying on the confession of the co-accused in determining the guilt of the petitioner. There is also force in the criticism by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate misread the evidence on record. He was under the impression that the contents of Exhibit P-1 corroborate the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3. But, this is obviously wrong. As per the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, M.O.1 a satta slip was in the hands of the petitioner. Whereas, according to the recitals found in Exhibit p-1, M.O.1 was in the hands of Silpachary, the convicted accused. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition has to be allowed. It is ordered accordingly. The petitioner is acquitted. If the fine imposed on him had been realised, it will be refunded. S.V.S. ----- Revision allowed.