Judgment : VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 31-8-2001, passed in S. T. No. 299 of 2001, by Sri R. N. Verma, learned Special Judge-I-cum-A. J. C. 6th, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. ( 2 ) TO summarise the case, it may be stated here that the F. I. R. was lodged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against the four unknown persons, but subsequently some persons, namely, 1. Uday Ram alias Avinash, 2. Bajrang Munda, 3. Savitri Devi, 4. Etwa Nayak, 5. Jhari Mulla and 6. Manish Kumar Jain were added and Sections 395/216/216-A of the Indian Penal Code were also added in it and charge-sheet was submitted against the aforementioned six persons under Sections 395/216/216-A of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) IT appears that during the course of investigation Vijay Munda, Uday Ram and Jhari Munda confessed their guilt before the police. ( 4 ) THE ground on which, the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge was rejected, is contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which reads as follows :"in the opinion of this Court admittedly the alleged confession of Vijay Munda, Uday Ram and Jhari before the Police is not legal evidence unless they confess before any Magistrate/court. But at this stage, it is not safe and legal to presume that these accused persons would not admit before the trial Court that they used to sell stolen property to Manish. Secondly the doors of Section 306 of the Cr. P. C. for the prosecution is still open to buy these accord to become approver. Hence, in the opinion of this Court it is neither legal nor proper to discharge Manish Jain. "on perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances mentioned in the impugned order, the following facts transpire : (I) There is no legal evidence against the petitioner. (II) Even though other accused confessed before the police that they had sold the property to the accused-petitioner, but nothing appears to have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. (III) Lateron the accused persons may admit during the trial that they had committed offence. (IV) The accused may become approver under Section 306 of the Cr. (II) Even though other accused confessed before the police that they had sold the property to the accused-petitioner, but nothing appears to have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. (III) Lateron the accused persons may admit during the trial that they had committed offence. (IV) The accused may become approver under Section 306 of the Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) THE grounds that the accused persons might have confessed their guilt and that the doors of the prosecution is still open that the accused will become approver are only the conjectures grounds and on these two grounds at least no charge can be framed. Further two other grounds are concerned, they are also not sufficient to make out any case even of a strong suspicion. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order dated 31-8-2001, passed in S. T. No. 299 of 2001 is set aside and this criminal revision application is allowed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .