JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. Challenge in the instant criminal revision petition filed by the accused petitioner under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C, has been made to the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur (‘the learned trial court’ for short) whereby the learned trial court has framed the charges against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 8(c)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case in hand the recovery of smack has been made from the possession of the co-accused Rajesh Tanwar and the present petitioner has been implicated in the case only on the basis of confessional statement of the Rajesh Tanwar. Learned counsel submits that from the material available on record, it is clear that there is no evidence against the present petitioner. 3. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments :— 1. Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 176; and 2. Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 416. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the submissions and supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to me including the judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. 6. So far as the accused petitioner - Saurabh Agarwal is concerned, perusal of record of the case reveals that as against the petitioner, apart from the statement of co-accused Rajesh Tanwar given to the police officer, there exists no material on record, by which it can be said that the petitioner conspired with the other co-accused Rajesh Tanwar for the purpose of supplying smack. 7. In a case reported in 2012 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 416, Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para no. 7 held ad-infra:— “7. 7. In a case reported in 2012 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 416, Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in para no. 7 held ad-infra:— “7. So far as petitioner Salag Ram is concerned, a perusal of the record reveals that as against petitioner Salag Ram, apart from the statement of co-accused given to the police officer, there exists no material on the record of the case, by which it can be said that petitioner Salag Ram conspired with the other co-accused for the purpose of supplying the opium to the accused Ganpat Ram. The statement of co-accused Shyam Lal given to a police officer is not admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Though the statement is said to be given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but such statement of co-accused Shyam Lal has not culminated into discovery of any incriminating material. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, such statement of co-accused given to the police officer cannot be said to be a piece of substantive evidence, on the strength whereof the charge can be framed against petitioner Salag Ram. The law in this regard is well-settled that the part of the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be relied upon which leads to the discovery of an incriminating fact. In the present case, the information of the accused has not resulted into any incriminating discovery as the opium was already recovered much before the information was given the police officer.” ? 8. In the present case the prosecution has not placed any prima facie material against the accused petitioner Saurabh Agrawal of conspiracy prior to or after recovery of the smack. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petition filed by the accused petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 by which the learned trial court framed the charges against the accused petitioner is hereby quashed.