Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned 06 th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, (CG), whereby revision filed by the petitioners has been rejected/dismissed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Sarju Sarkar (informant) lodged a report before the concerned Police Station stating therein that on 16-10-2022 he was sleeping in his house along with his family. At about 2.00 PM (in the night), some unknown persons pressed the door bell of his house, when he opened the door saw that the persons covered their face with a cloth and carrying stick in their hands. They forcibly pushed him inside the house and started hitting him by means of stick, due to which, he sustained injuries on his right toe, head, knee and hands. It is further alleged that when informant’s wife tried to intervened, they also pushed her, due to which, she also suffered injury on her knee and, thereafter, they ran away from the spot. Based upon report, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed before the trial Court concerned against the present petitioners alonwith one another accused person, who is main accused of this case. Based upon which, charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences under Section 458, 323 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 08-11-2023 (Annexure A-2). Against which, the present petitioners have filed the revision before the Revisional Court, however, learned Revisional Court vide impugned order Annexure A-1, affirmed/upheld the order dated 08-11-2023 and dismissed/rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned order is perverse, illegal and contrary to the law. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that ingredients of alleged offences is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Only on the basis of memorandum of main accused, the petitioners have been implicated in this case, however, there is no any evidence/material available which shows the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged crime/offence. He further submits that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution are prima-facie not sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioners nor enough to prove that the the petitioners are guilty for the alleged offence/crime. He further submits that the evidence/material collected by the prosecution are prima-facie not sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioners nor enough to prove that the the petitioners are guilty for the alleged offence/crime. None of the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC have made any allegation against the present petitioners. Name of the petitioners is neither mentioned in the written complaint lodged by the complainant nor in the FIR. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order, affirming the order dated 08-11-2023 (Annexure A-2) may be quashed/set-aside and petitioners be discharged from the offence under Section 458, 323 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail versus SPL. Director, Enforcement Directorate & Anr, (2007) 8 SCC 254 and order dated 02.01.2015 passed by co-ordinate bench of this court in CRMP No.2406/2018. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioners and would submit that learned Revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned order and rejected the revision of the petitioners, in which, interference is not required. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the evidence/material available on record including the impugned order. 6. Perusal of records would show that in the FIR neither name of the present petitioners has been mentioned nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC there is any allegation against the present petitioners for the alleged offence or their involvement. Only on the basis of memorandum statement of the main accused/Tekraj Satyam, present petitioners has been made accused in this case and charge-sheet has been filed against him for the alleged offence. 7. For ready reference, relevant para of case of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail (supra) reads as under: “19. Apart therefrom the High Court was bound to take into consideration the factum of retraction of the confession by the appellant. It is now a well- settled principle of law that a confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the conclusion deducible therefrom. It is now a well- settled principle of law that a confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the conclusion deducible therefrom. [See Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 ; Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 832 ; and Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 4 SCC 266 ].” 8. Relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, reads as under : Section 25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. -- No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. -- No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police- officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 9. It is pertinent to mention here that Section 25 makes confessional statement of the accused before the police officers inadmissible evidence, which cannot be brought on record by prosecution to obtain conviction. It is also important that confession by the accused while custody of the police not to be proved against any person unless confession be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 10. Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that the expression ‘provided that’ together with the phrase ‘whether it amounts to a confession or not’. Section 27 shows that section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly in Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. 10. Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides that the expression ‘provided that’ together with the phrase ‘whether it amounts to a confession or not’. Section 27 shows that section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly in Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act. First condition necessary for bringing the Section into operation is the discovery of a fact; second condition is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to; third condition is at the time of recording of memorandum statement, informant/accused must be in the police custody. It is also pertinent to mention here that only ‘so much of the information’ as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. 11. In the present case, there is no any recovery of facts has been recovered from the instance of the main accused/Tekraj Satyam and, therefore, rest of the informant has to be excluded. All the prosecution witnesses including the complainant did not make any version against the petitioners. Prosecution has not shown any evidence/material which shows that petitioners and the main accused were pre-meeting of the mind for the criminal conspiracy. The main accused has not given any statement under Section 164 of Cr.PC and there is no evidence/material available which attracts the Section 10 & 30 of the Evidence Act and prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged commission of offence/crime 12. In view of above discussions, the present case appears to be a fit case for interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Revision No.05/2024, arising out of the order dated 08.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed in Criminal Case No.381/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising thereof is hereby quashed, qua the present petitioners only. CC as per rules.