JUDGMENT 1. - State has challenged legality, propriety and validity of the order of discharge dated 17.12.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 62/98. Notices were issued to non-petitioners, on whose behalf Mr. Khatri has made appearance. Heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for non-petitioners. 2. It is stated that on 14.7.1998 at 9.15 p.m., on the basis of secret information, at Pokaran road near 226 Kms stone one person named KTC Mohammed Kunju was found sitting, in whose possession there were 23 .38 caliber revolvers along with 20 cartridges, 69mm plastic handgranades, 20 initiators, 1.350 Kgs orange colour detonating cordex, 850 gms black colour safety fuse, 30 electrical detonators, 30 ordinary detonators, 5 VHF wireless set battery accessories, AC ejector battery charger, 24 LK light battery, 15 RDX stick detonetor, 5 electrical remote control devices, 20 green colour timer circuits ABCD, 20 sets explosive priming, 20 packets high-explosive RDX yellow colour weighing 29.400 Kgs., 16.600 Kgs High-ex slabs (TNT) (black colour), 14.300 Kgs High-explosive black colour; black colour 32.800 Kgs high explosive in red bag, yellow colour explosive 2.200 Kgs in red bag; along with other articles including a mobile phone. The explosive and other material found in his possession were seized and sealed then and there. 3. During investigation, above KTC Kunju Mohammed disclosed that he was doing this illicit business along with Soheb Kaliya, Rafiq Chikna and Sheikh Kasam; who are non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 herein. 4. After usual investigation, Police challaned all these four persons for offence u/ss. 3 & 7 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act as also u/ss. 4, 5 of the Explosives Act, Section 3/6 of the Indian Wireless & Telegraph Act and Section 121,121-A & 120-B IPC. 5. The Court below, by the impugned order, framed charges only against KTC Kunju Mohammed and discharged remaining three persons. Hence this revision. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor tried to impress upon me that Kunju Mohammed was friendly with the present non-petitioners and therefore, they were also equally associated with him in committing the crime. Reference to confessional statement of Kunju Mohammed recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was also made. On the contrary, learned counsel for non-petitioners supported the impugned order. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. Reference to confessional statement of Kunju Mohammed recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. was also made. On the contrary, learned counsel for non-petitioners supported the impugned order. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. Statement of co-accused can be relevant to some extent u/s. 30 of the Evidence Act provided he implicates himself to the extent he has implicated the co-accused but that by itself is not sufficient to convict the co-accused. The confessional statement so made-by the co-accused in the same trial shall be corroborated by some independent evidence before bringing home the guilt for the co-accused. 9. In the matter at hand, no such link evidence is available on the file and therefore, trial Court after giving consent reasons, discharged non-petitioners No. 1 to 30. I do not find any illegality much less any jurisdictional .error in the order impugned, causing miscarriage of justice. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition and same stands dismissed. File of the Court below be sent back forthwith, with direction to depredate the trial which is already more than 3 years old.Revision petition dismissed. *******