1. Heard Mr. R.M.Daga, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.S. Sonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Police had received an information that Ganja was being transported from Andhra Pradesh to Madhya Pradesh in a truck bearing No.AP-24 U 5688. The said truck was accosted on its way to Madhya Pradesh near village Kamthi. One accused Moulali was driving the said truck. It was found that it contained large quantity of ganja. It was seized. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant/accused besides others who are said to be absconding. 4. The present applicant/accused applied before the court of Sessions for his discharge on the ground that there is no legal evidence whatsoever against him and he should be discharged. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application. Being aggrieved by that order, this revision is preferred. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that besides the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State does not dispute before me that besides the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other evidence. It is an established law that unless there is some other evidence, the confessional statement of the coaccused cannot be looked into as valid piece of evidence. It has been held by this court in a case reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 571 (Laxmi Koli Babita vs. State of Maharashtra) that confessional statement of the co-accused cannot be called in aid to frame charges against the accused in absence of any other evidence. The facts of that case are almost identical to the case at hand. In this case, besides the confessional statement of the co-accused, no other evidence is available against the present applicant. In view of this, it must be said that there is no evidence to frame the charge against the accused. The accused, therefore, deserves to be discharged. Hence, the revision application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Special Judge is set aside. The accused stands discharged.