Judgment Jitendra Ray Goyal, J.-This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed against the order dated 30.04.2005 passed by Special Court (Fake Currency Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 69/2005 by which the order passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur for framing the charges against the accused petitioner in Criminal Case No. 806/2003 under Sections 380 and 457 IPC was upheld. 2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecuter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no iota of evidence against the accused petitioner Jitendra by which he can be connected with the offence.It is also contended that statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence and on that basis charges cannot be framed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment Dilawer Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 CrLR 118 (SC) wherein it was held that while acting under Section 227 CrPC the Judge cannot act merely as post office or a mouthpiece of prosecution but weigh the evidence impartially and thoroughly. In the case of Rambalirajgar ∧ Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 CrLR 695 (Raj) it was observed that charge cannot be framed solely on the basis of statement of co-accused. 3. Learned Public Prosecuter supported the impugned order and contended that accused petitioner Jitendra alongwith two other co-accused persons commited theft in the jewellery shop of the complainant Sudarshan Soni situated near Murlipura Mataji Temple in the night. It is also contended that petitioner after arrest identified the place of occurrence and gave the information that they sold the stolen jewellery articles at Jaipur. It is also contended that accused petitioner Jitendra and co-accused Bhagwan Sahay to whom the theft articles were sold gave the joint information about the recovery of the stolen articles and ultimately stolen property which was converted into silver bar was recovered. It is also contended that after bail co-accused Bhagwan Sahay fled away and two another co-accused persons Harish Jain and Surendra who were involved in the theft with the accused petitioner Jitendra are still absconding. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. It is a case of theft from the jewellry shop after committing house breaking by night. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in this offence. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. It is a case of theft from the jewellry shop after committing house breaking by night. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in this offence. The police after investigation collected the evidence and recovered the stolen property, which was converted into silver bar, on the information of co-accused Bhagwan Sahay to whom theft articles were alleged to have been sold by the petitioner. The petitioner Jitendra gave the information from where theft was committed and on his information he identified the place of occurrence. It also transpires from the charge-sheet papers that petitioner also gave information that he sold the stolen articles at Jaipur and joint information of accused petitioner and co-accused Bhagwan Sahay was also recorded by the police under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Honble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari and Ors., reported in 2000 (2) Supreme Court Cases 57 held, that the Court has to see whether prima facie there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It was further held that at the stage of framing the charge, it cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no good reasons to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Consequently, the Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed.