JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard finally. 2. This Criminal Application arises out of First Information Report dated 2nd June, 2009 in Crime No. 57/2009, which has culminated into a charge-sheet dated 20th September, 2009 and Criminal Case. No. 3345 of 2009. 3. The ground pressed in service can be summarized as follows:- Accepting every word contained in the charge-sheet and its accompaniments, all that the prosecution has against the applicant is:- Statement of the co-accused and no other evidence. 4. Learned APP was called upon to make a statement as to truthfulness of this aspect of the matter. 5. It is seen from para 3 of the affidavit of the Investigating Officer that it has revealed in the interrogation of the co-accused that the accused present applicant was also involved in the act of various thefts. 6. Learned APP concedes after taking instructions that evidence of other witnesses is not available against the present applicant. 7. To support his contention that the accused deserves discharge when the prosecution case is based solely on the version of co-accused, learned Adv., for the applicant has placed reliance on following judgments:- [1] Pradeep Kumar Jain alias Babbe Vs. State of U.P. & another [2003 Cri. L.J. 682], [2] Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 1952 SC 159 ], [3] Bhuboni Sahu And the King [Indian Appeals 147 (Vol.LXXVI)], [4] H. N. Venaktesh & other Vs. State of Karnataka [2002 Cri. L.J. 328], [5] P. K. Lambodaran Nair Vs. State of Kerala & others [2003 Cri. L.J. 2917], [6] Virbhadram Vyankanna Guggalot Vs. State of Maharashtra [2008 (1) AIR Bom. R 814]], and [7] Laxmi Koli Babita Vs. The State of Maharashtra [2005 Cri. L.J. 4828]. 8. Law of precedent as emerging from two of this Court judgments at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7, namely Virbhadram Vyankanna Guggalot, and Laxmi Koli Babita [cited supra], and also as seen in various other judgments referred at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5, can be summarized as follows:- The statement of co-accused can always be used in aid if the accused is being tried primarily on other evidence. The statements of co-accused cannot be the foundation to convict the accused when that be the sole material. 9. Nos. 1 to 5, can be summarized as follows:- The statement of co-accused can always be used in aid if the accused is being tried primarily on other evidence. The statements of co-accused cannot be the foundation to convict the accused when that be the sole material. 9. In the present case, as it is seen, prosecution does not have with it any other material except the statement of co-accused. 10. Therefore, result of the trial can be foreseen without being speculative, in the background that admittedly there is no other evidence, whatsoever, against the applicant, except the statement of co-accused recorded during investigation. 11. This Court, therefore, considers that permitting the trial based on such unsustainable material any further, would be nothing but vexing the accused and burdening the Courts with the prosecution, which cannot be reasonably expected to fructify or at least could be worthy of trial. 12. Therefore, by allowing the trial to proceed is nothing but permitting to waste of time of the prosecution, the Court and a burden on State exchequer, apart that it tends to disrepute the Criminal Law Administration System. 13. Rule is made absolute, and the First Information Report dated 2nd June, 2009 in Crime No. 57 of 2009, Charge-sheet dated 20th September, 2009 and Criminal Case No. 3345 of 2009 are quashed. Application allowed.