( 1 ) ANANT Kumar has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, framing charges under Section 395/397, I. P. C. against the petitioner in S. T. No. 104/84.

( 2 ) I have heard the parties' Counsel. The petitioner's contention is that it is a case of no evidence and there was no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judge to frame the charges as said above. He has described the circumstances as below : (i) He is not named in the F. I. R. (ii) No identification proceedings have taken place and consequently there was no occasion for his being identified in an identification parade. (iii) No recovery of articles has taken place from his possession. (iv) No witness has named him under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and consequently it was a case of no evidence and the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in framing charges against him.

( 3 ) I have heard the Counsel for the State, Shri S. B. Mishra. From his arguments I could guess that he was feeling difficult to defend the case and consequently he relied on, Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act saying that the co-accused has named