ORDER This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Sakchi P.S. Case No. 265 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2481 of 2005, whereby he took cognizance against petitioner under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by Sri R.S.P. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of first information report and charge-sheet it will manifest that there is no legal evidence for taking cognizance under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that petitioner made accused in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Suresh Agrawal, from whose possession, 14 packets of alleged Kalas Zarda recovered. It is then submitted that apart from confessional statement of Suresh Agrawal made before police, other materials against petitioner is his own confessional statement made before police. It is submitted that both the confessional statements are not admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that admittedly alleged 14 packets of Kalas Zarda recovered from the possession of Suresh Agrawal and said Suresh Agarwal has been discharged by the learned court below, but cognizance under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against petitioner, though nothing recovered from his possession. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained. 3. Sri P.K. Sahay, learned Additional PP and Sri Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not disputed aforesaid factual position after going through the first information report and charge-sheet. 4. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, petitioner is not named in the first information report. However from perusal of Annexure-2 (charge-sheet) I find that petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Suresh Agarwal made before the police. Apart from that another material against petitioner is his own confessional statement made before the police. Charge-sheet further reveals that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner, rather recovery was made from the possessions of co-accused Md. Jamal @ Guddu and co-accused Suresh Agarwal. Strangely both the aforesaid accused were shown in the charge-sheet as suspect and charge-sheet was submitted against petitioner under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge-sheet further reveals that nothing has been recovered from the possession of petitioner, rather recovery was made from the possessions of co-accused Md. Jamal @ Guddu and co-accused Suresh Agarwal. Strangely both the aforesaid accused were shown in the charge-sheet as suspect and charge-sheet was submitted against petitioner under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance had not applied his mind on the facts stated in the charge-sheet. Since no stolen articles recovered from the possession of petitioner, thus in my view against him no offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Moreover confessional statement of co-accused and petitioner made before the police are no evidence as same are hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that impugned order suffers from serious illegality, therefore cannot be sustained. In the result, this application is allowed and impugned order is quashed.