JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadi (Banswara) in connection with Criminal Regular Case No. 402/2006 whereby a direction to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 Rajasthan Excise Act was issued, as affirmed in revision petition by the order dated 26.8.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. 2. Assailing the order framing charges, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the recovery was made from a room which was exclusively in the possession of the co-accused Nilesh. The premises from where the recovery was made are owned by one Harish Avchar and the petitioner has nothing to do with either the recovered liquor or the premises from where the recovery was made. Thus, it is submitted that the order framing charge against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and is the abuse of process of the Court. The learned Counsel, therefore, prays that the order of the Trial Court as affirmed by Revisional Court qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the misc. petition and submits that the Trial Court whilst directing framing of charges against the petitioner has relied upon the interrogation notes of the petitioner as well as the co-accused Nilesh in which they confessed about their guilt in relation to the liquor recovered and thus, the order of framing of charges was absolutely justified. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the record of the case. 5. Undisputedly, in this case, the petitioner has no connection with either the premises from where the recovery of the illicit liquor was made, nor the petitioner is said to be present at the place of occurrence when the recovery was made.A perusal of the order of the Trial Court reveals that the charge has been framed against the petitioner, simply on the basis of the interrogational statement of the accused, such a statement of the accused made to the police officer is obviously hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever.Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the learned Trial Court, whereby charges have been directed to be framed against the petitioner. In this case, as affirmed by the Revisional Court cannot be said to be a just and proper order, but rather amounts to abuse of process of the Court. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds. The order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gadi (Banswara) is hereby quashed qua the petitioner and the learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case as regards the accused Nilesh. Record of the Lower Court is directed to be sent back forthwith. 7. The stay application stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******