JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal revision petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 5.1.2008, framing charges against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel submits that the charges have been framed based on extra judicial confession of the co-accused. The extra judicial confession can be considered in view of section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act but is considered to be a weak evidence. 3. In the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence against the petitioner so as to frame charges based on extra judicial confession. It is a case where offence under sections 395, 396, 397, 302 and 460 IPC has been alleged against all the accused. The petitioner was not involved in the instant case, however, co-accused-Raj Kumar stated that he had given Rs. 2 lacs to Guddan dacoit to cause the incident and, out of which, Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the accused petitioner - Ramswaroop. They organised the occurrence wherein one Satish @ Bhola son of complainant Amar Singh died. The statements of Rajveer Singh and Kishan Singh have been relied before whom extra judicial confession was made by the co-accused Raj Kumar. In absence of corroborative evidence, charges cannot be framed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Pancho v. State of Haryana", AIR 2012 SC 523 . Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " State of MP through CBI etc v. Paltan Mallah & ors", AIR 2005 SC 733 and even in the case of " Abdul Rashid v. State of Bihar", AIR 2001 SC 2422 and, lastly of this court in the case of " Pradeep Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan", 1999 CrLJ 3829. The prayer is accordingly made to quash the impugned order qua petitioner. 4. Learned PP has opposed the revision petition. It is submitted that at the time of framing of charges, only prima facie case is seen. The evidence for it need not to be of the nature which may lead to conviction, if remains un-rebutted. The stage aforesaid comes when the application under section 319 CrPC is filed. The court below had considered the facts of the case for framing of charges and finding evidence against the petitioner, charges were framed. The prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the revision petition. 5. The stage aforesaid comes when the application under section 319 CrPC is filed. The court below had considered the facts of the case for framing of charges and finding evidence against the petitioner, charges were framed. The prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the revision petition. 5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is a case where at the first occasion, when charges were framed, it was set aside by the High Court with remand of the case for a fresh order. The impugned order has been passed thereupon. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is in reference to section 30 of the Evidence Act. According to him, extra judicial confession is a weak evidence and cannot be relied for framing of charges. The judgments have been cited to substantiate the argument. I find that in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court decided the case after conviction on the basis of confession made by the ex-member of the Panchayat. Taking into consideration the facts of that case i.e. delay and other aspects, extra judicial confession was found to be doubtful. It was even keeping in mind retraction of those statements thus the case aforesaid was decided on its own facts after conclusion of the trial and not at the time of framing of the charges. 7. In the case of Abdul Rashid (supra), it was again a case of conviction where entire evidence was considered to find out whether conviction would be valid based on extra judicial confession. 8. In the case of State of MP through CBI (supra), it was held that extra judicial confession of the co-accused needs corroborative evidence and in absence of which conviction would not be proper thus it was again a case which was decided after the trial and not at the time of framing of the charges. 9. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Jain (supra), this court intervened in the order framing charges but, there, section 30 of the Evidence Act has not been referred. It was decided in reference of section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 10. It is settled law that for framing charges, only prima facie case is required to be seen. It was decided in reference of section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 10. It is settled law that for framing charges, only prima facie case is required to be seen. In the case of " Chattar Singh & anr v. State of Haryana", AIR 2009 SC 378 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately considered the issue in reference to sanctity of extra judicial confession. In para 18 of the judgment it has been observed as under - "18. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility." 11. In the same manner, Hon'ble Apex Court had considered the issue in the case of " Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra", (1971) 3 SCC 432 also and found that in what cases, confessional statement can be considered. 12. In the same manner, Hon'ble Apex Court had considered the issue in the case of " Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra", (1971) 3 SCC 432 also and found that in what cases, confessional statement can be considered. 12. In the instant case, the charges have been framed by referring the statement of two independent witnesses before whom extra judicial confession was made by the co-accused. It can be considered as per section 30 of the Evidence Act. At the framing of charges, the court need not to hold that the evidence is of such nature which would be sufficient to lead conviction, rather, it should be of a nature to show a prima facie evidence for framing of charges. 13. Taking into consideration over all facts, impugned order framing charges against the petitioner cannot be quashed on the grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, criminal revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******