ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the accused/petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor who accepts notices on behalf of the non-petitioner - State. 2. By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner - Pushpendra Meena has assailed the judgment impugned dated 16th December, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uniara, District Tonk by which, cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 19/54 and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. On preferring revision petition against the said order, learned Sessions Judge, Tonk has rejected the same under order dated 20th February, 2017 which has also been assailed by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence collected during investigation against the accused/ petitioner and thus, charge-sheet was not filed against him. Without there being any evidence available on record and charge-sheet, learned trial Court on the basis of conjectures and surmises has ordered to take cognizance against the present petitioner. He further argues that even on perusal of the order impugned dated 16th December, 2002, it is apparent that no ground has been mentioned by the learned trial Court on the basis of which, cognizance is taken. Learned counsel has further argued that the Revisional Court, in its order dated 20th February, 2017 has mentioned that on the basis of the statements given by co-accused Gulab Chand, who happens to be the driver and Jagdish, who was Khalasi of the truck, the cognizance order passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. Learned counsel has averred that it is the settled proposition of law that statements of co-accused cannot be read as an evidence against the other accused. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2007 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 703 and in Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 337 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on being asked, as to what is the evidence available along with the charge-sheet to take cognizance against the present petitioner, has also indicated only to the statements of the co-accused Gulab Chand and Jagdish. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on being asked, as to what is the evidence available along with the charge-sheet to take cognizance against the present petitioner, has also indicated only to the statements of the co-accused Gulab Chand and Jagdish. Besides these statements, no other material has been indicated by him on the basis of which, cognizance could have been taken the present petitioner - Pushpendra Meena. 5. In light of the arguments advanced by both the sides, I have perused the order impugned dated 16th December, 2002 passed by the learned trial Court wherein, no mention is found of any iota of evidence on which, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner - Pushpendra Meena. Though, in the FIR, it has been stated that one person jumped from the truck transporting illicit liquor and ran away, who was allegedly owner of the liquor but no evidence has been collected during investigation proving the fact that, that person was Pushpendra Meena, that is the reason, charge-sheet has not been filed against him. The whole discussion has been made by the learned trial Court in respect of the registered owner of the truck and the person who has purchased the same from him. But there is no whisper of any evidence against Pushpendraq Meena on which, cognizance has been taken against him. In absence of any such evidence, simply on the conjectures and surmises that Police has tried to protect Pushpendra Meena from the offences alleged, the cognizance has been taken which cannot be justified in any manner. 6. Further, on perusal of the order passed by the learned Revisional Court, it comes out that when the alleged illicit liquor was recovered from the truck, while being transported, one person was allegedly jumped out from the truck and ran away. It has also been mentioned in the order that there is no evidence as to who was that person or whether he was Pushpendra Meena ? Simply on the basis that the truck driver Gulab Chand and Khalasi - Jagdish stated that the liquor was owned by Pushpendra Meena, the cognizance order has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. It is strange to note that no such observation has been recorded by the learned trial Court regarding any evidence given by Gulab Chand and Jagdish. 7. It is strange to note that no such observation has been recorded by the learned trial Court regarding any evidence given by Gulab Chand and Jagdish. 7. In light of the above observations, there appears no justification in the orders impugned taking cognizance against the present petitioner. In the absence of any cogent evidence to connect the petitioner to the alleged offence, it is apparently clear that it will be simply abuse of process of the Court to continue proceedings against him for the offences punishable under Sections 19/54 and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and will result in miscarriage of justice. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the orders impugned dated 16th December, 2002 passed by learned trial Court and dated 20th February, 2017 passed by learned Revisional Court are quashed and set aside.