JUDGMENT N.C. Khichi, J. - This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 18th March, 1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra in a State case FIR No. 372, dated 14.5.1998 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code pertaining to Police Station City Thanesar whereby the trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner under Section 411 read with Section 107 Indian Penal Code 2. According to the prosecution, one Parveen Kundu was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case. He allegedly made a confessional statement that he alongwith the petitioner and Pradhuman had stolen a car bearing No. HR-36/7279 and sold the same. He further disclosed before the police that this car was handed over to him by Pradhuman. The vehicle is question was allegedly recovered at the instance of Parveen Kundu in pursuance of disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short to be referred as "the Act"). 3. During investigation, no case was found to have been made out against the petitioner and Pradhuman whereas challan was filed against Parveen Kundu alone. Report regarding discharge of the petitioner was filed since there was no evidence against him. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the report and decided to proceed further by passing the impugned order dated 18.3.1999. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner on record to justify even a prima facie case for framing the charge against him. The confessional statement of co- accused is in-admissible in evidence. 5. I have considered the matter. Learned trial Court though rightly recorded that confessional statement made by the accused (petitioner) without discovery of fact is not admissible under Section 27 of the Act but erred that a prima facie case is made out with the aid of Section 30 of the Act. The confessional statement of the petitioner without any discovery of fact is no evidence in the eyes of law. Learned State counsel was unable to point out any incrimating material on record so as to prima facie implicate the petitioner to justify the framing of charge. Any disclosure statement of an accused under Section 27 of the Act leading to no recovery is in-admissible in evidence. Similar view was taken by Honble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand in Crl. Learned State counsel was unable to point out any incrimating material on record so as to prima facie implicate the petitioner to justify the framing of charge. Any disclosure statement of an accused under Section 27 of the Act leading to no recovery is in-admissible in evidence. Similar view was taken by Honble Mr. Justice R.L. Anand in Crl. Revision No. 314 of 1999, decided on 20.5.1999 and quashed the charge sheet. This Court also took a similar view in another Crl. Revision No. 659 of 1999, Rajesh v. State of Haryana. 6. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no incriminating material brought so as to suggest a prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. In view of what has been stated above, the Revision Petition is accepted, impugned order dated 18.3.1999 is quashed and the petitioner is discharged. Revision allowed.