petitioner herein during investigation, and final report happened to be submitted against him solely on the basis of a statement given by the first accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. No doubt, statements given by an accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act will not amount to confession as meant under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. To rely on confession of a coaccused as meant under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, there must be a judicial or extra judicial confession made by one of the accused in the crime. Statements made by an accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act; whether it led to recovery or not, will not amount to confession meant under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. In this case, I find that the prosecution has no material whatever, against the petitioner herein, except the statements alleged to have been made by the first accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Solely on the basis of such statements, the prosecution cannot proceed and the petitioner herein cannot be tried on the allegation that he received the stolen properties from the first accused. I find that the prosecution as against the petitioner herein will be waste of time,
