JUDGMENT : G.D. Saxena, J.: - This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the petitioner/accused is directed against an order dated 9th November 2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 7718/2010, by the Judicial Mag­istrate First Class, Gwalior framing thereby charges for commission of offence punish­able under Section 9-B of the Explosive Substances Act read with Sections 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner/accused. 2. The facts in short, just for the decision of this revision petition are that on 8th May 2010 in front of the gate of J.A. Hospital, on the road of Mandre Ki Mata Gwalior, the checking was made by the Police Squad. During the course of checking, the accused Vallabha @ Balram was found carrying Crackers without valid licence in a Mar­shal Jeep and the driver was also found not possessing the permit to drive the motor vehicle. The vehicle and the crackers car­ried illegally were seized and the accused Vallabha @ Balram was arrested on the spot who informed that the crackers were being carried for petitioner Vijaya Kumar Jain at Karhaiya district Gwalior. Accordingly, on the report the FIR was lodged against ac­cused-persons including the present peti­tioner and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. During trial, the charges as above were framed against the petitioner/accused, hence this revision before this Court. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned or­der passed by the Trial Court is neither le­gal nor proper. It is submitted that on pe­rusal of the charge-sheet papers and the evi­dence collected during investigation, no offence under Section 9-B of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act is made out against the accused. It is further pointed out that the statement regarding discovery of facts is not admissible against other ac­cused. In fact, this is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, it is re­quested that by allowing the revision petition, the petitioner/accused be discharged of the alleged charges. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respon­dent/State on the other hand, supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision being found without force. 5. Heard the Learned counsel for the par­ties and also perused the case-diary of the relevant crime and the law applicable to the present case. 6. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respon­dent/State on the other hand, supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision being found without force. 5. Heard the Learned counsel for the par­ties and also perused the case-diary of the relevant crime and the law applicable to the present case. 6. On perusal of the provisions contained in Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there appears mandatory requirement for having permit to owners of the vehicles used in transport or carrying passengers in public place. Violation of provisions using the transport or carrying passengers in pub­lic place by such owners or drivers of such transport or passenger vehicle is punishable under Section 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner is neither driver nor owner of the transport vehicle carrying the fire works in the vehicle. Hence, the charge for commission of offence under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be framed against him. 7. Next submission of the learned coun­sel for the petitioner is that except the Memorandum under Section 27 of the Evi­dence Act that the Fire works were being carried at the behest of the petitioner in the loading vehicle, no other cogent evidence is available on record to establish the guilt of the petitioner and statement of other co-accused regarding discovery of facts is not admissible against the petitioner. 8. To this context, it may be mentioned here that where the words spoken by the accused do not implicate him with the com­mission of offence but refer only to the na­ture of property hidden by him, they, are admissible in evidence. The fact said to have been discovered in consequence of in­formation received from a person accused of an offence, must be of a kind which such information really helps to bring to light and which it would be difficult to find out otherwise before it can be treated as of any substantial probative value. Hence, the important condition embedded in the sec­tion is that only so much of the informa­tion as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. Further, Section 9-B of the Act enacts the violation/contravention of rules made under the provision of Section 5 or of the conditions granted under rules made thereunder and prescribes the punishment for illegal possession, use, sells, transport, import or export of the ex­plosive. 9. Further, Section 9-B of the Act enacts the violation/contravention of rules made under the provision of Section 5 or of the conditions granted under rules made thereunder and prescribes the punishment for illegal possession, use, sells, transport, import or export of the ex­plosive. 9. The learned Trial Court on perusal of the chargesheet and the statements etc. placed before it found prima facie material against the accused-petitioner for the violation/contravention of the relevant rules in respect of having licence for possession, use, sale, transport, import, and export of the explosives. Therefore, if on the basis of materials on record, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that commission of offence under the Act is probable of­fence, it cannot be said to have committed any illegality. The truthfulness or otherwise of the documents is not required to be judged at the initial stage of framing of charge. 10. Consequently, the revision petition succeeds in part. The charge framed against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 66/192 of the Motor Vehicles Act is set aside. However, the trial against him for other charges shall continue.