( 1 ) ). The petitioners have filed this Revision Application before this court against the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch at bhuj on 24-9-1991 in Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 64 of 1991. The learned Sessions judge allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent No. 1-Superintendent of Customs against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, kutch at Bhuj on 3-9-1991 releasing the petitioners on bail in connection with the offence committed by them under Sec. 135 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) ). Mr. Kapadia, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that except the retracted statement of the co-accused there is no other evidence to involve the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 135 of the Act for smuggling silver worth more than Rs. 6. 00 crores. Such evidence is no evidence in the eye of law and on such evidence, no Court can convict the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail. Merely because the statement of the co-accused recorded under Sec. 108 of the Act is retracted subsequently by the accused, it cannot be said that it is no evidence. Conviction ca