ORDER 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision under sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of framing charge against the applicant - Harsimransingh under sections 8/15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [in brief "the NDPS Act"] in Special S.T.No. 13/2018 on 8.6.2019. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 3.7.2018 pursuant to an information received by police team of Bhanpura Police Station, District Mandsaur, intercepted a truck bearing registration number PB-11/BU4728. The information received was that the truck shall be carrying poppy straw hidden along with the sacks of Onions. On interception, it was found that there were 277 sacks of Onions weighing 15332 kgs. After unloading the Onion sacks from the truck, it was found that there were 6 red, green and yellow colour plastic bags. In one bag, there were 20 smaller bags while in other five bags contained 25-25 smaller bags. Thus, 145 kgs. of poppy straw was seized from Karnelsingh who was found in the truck. Karnelsingh in his memorandum recorded on 6.7.2018 has stated that the poppy straw was given to him by the present applicant Harsimransingh at a place near Punjabi Dhaba in JaoraNamli (Ratlam). Harsimransingh was apprehended on 7.7.2018 and gave memorandum that he had given 6 sacks of poppy straw weighing 145 kgs. and that he had obtained poppy straw from one Mahendra Babu in Jaora and Harsimransingh proposed to get Mahendra Babu arrested. However, there is no document on record to show that Mahendra Babu was in fact arrested. 3. The question before this Court is whether such statements constitute any evidence or not ? 4. In number of orders pronounced by Coordinate Benches, it has uniformly been held that such memorandum statements would not constitute an evidence. The orders of the Co-ordinate Benches are - Criminal Revision No.2769 of 2017 decided on 1.12.2018 [Ayyub Kha s/o Babu Kha v. State of M.P.]; Criminal Revision No.2755 of 2018 decided on 5.9.2018 [Vishal s/o Govind Patidar v. State of M.P.]; Criminal Revision No. 245 of 2015 decided on 3.9.2015 [Banshilal v. State of M.P.]; Criminal Revision No. 3281 of 2018 decided on 13.8.2018 [Mahendra s/o Sukhramji Vishnoi and another v. State of M.P.] and Criminal Revision No.30 of 2016 decided on 24.4.2017 [Bhanwarlal Patidar v. State of M.P.]. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that commercial quantity of poppy straw was seized in the matter and, therefore, no order of discharge be passed in such matters. However, on due consideration, the only restriction in respect of commercial quantity of Narcotic under NDPS Act is direction under section 37 of NDPS Act against granting bail as has already been held in the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches that memorandum statement does not in itself constitute any evidence. In the case of State of Tamilnadu v. Nalini [ AIR 1999 SC 2640 ], it has been laid down that a confessional statement made by conspirator accused after his arrest can be used against the co-accused in limited scope while corroborating other evidence. Thus, the statement made by co-conspirator against the present applicant cannot be used against the applicant if there is no other corroborating piece of evidence available. In the matter in hand, there is no other material corroborating evidence against the applicant apart from the memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act of the co-accused. 6. Consequently, this revision application deserves to be allowed and applicant directed to be discharged from offence under sections 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act.