1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 11.5.2018 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Khargone framing charges under section 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34, 120-B and 406 of the IPC in Sessions Trial No. 25/2018.

2. As per the prosecution case, the Assistant Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Khargone Branch filed a written complaint in which it was alleged that some fictitious persons had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the bank on the basis of forged documents such as Voter ID card and land records in the name of one lady Radhabai w/o Anandilal. As alleged, the loan application was filed by accused Santoshibai showing herself to be Radhabai and was able to get sanction of Rs. 10,00,000/- as loan amount and thereafter, amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- were disbursed to her on 26.12.2014 and 29.12.2014. In the process of verification, it was found that Radhabai was not residing in the address given which was at Village Dasnawal, Tehsil Segaon, District Khargone. Thereafter, bank officials visited the agricultural land of Radhabai situated at Village Bhikarkhedi, Tehsil Segaon and it was informed that she was living in Village Khalghat, Tehsil Dharampuri, District Dhar. On visiting that place, it was found that Radhabai had died long back on 16.8.2000. The Voter ID Card No. CJCI1413681 which was filed thereafter was submitted and it was found that this Voter ID belonged to another lady namely, Basantibai W/o Bondar Singh. This proved that Voter ID in the name of Radhabai was forged on the basis of which investigation was initiated and it was found that the Bondar Singh was looking after the fields of Radhabai and the revenue entries of Radhabai was in the possession of Bondar Singh and this fact was known to the co-accused persons namely, Vinod Shukla and Manish Patel, who persuaded Bondar Singh to play fraud and get loan on the basis of pawati. Thereafter, Bondar Singh was introduced to the applicant, Vinod Patidar, Shriram Patidar and Prakash Patidar who obtained Voter ID of Radhabai from Bondar Singh and prepared forged Voter ID of Radhabai and introduced Santoshibai as Radhabai and got loan sanctioned. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused including the applicant Shriram Patidar.

3. Learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar, Khargone vide order dated 11.5.2018 framed charges under sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34, 120B and 406 of the IPC against the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons.

4. Against this order, criminal revision has been preferred. In the grounds mentioned in the criminal revision, it has been stated that there is no other evidence against the applicant apart from the memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is memorandum of co-accused, which is inadmissible against the applicant.

5. The Court's attention was also brought to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, which is based on identical facts and the same having been passed in Cr. R. No. 2313/2018 in the case of Vinod Patidar v. State of M.P. on 5.9.2018.

6. In that case, identical fraud was played with the Syndicate Bank, Khargone by the same set of accused persons taking loan in the name of Radhabai (same deceased lady as in this case). In that case also, there was no evidence apart from the memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In that case, a reference was made to Privy Council decision in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, reported in AIR 1947, PC 67, in which it was held that unless there is discovery of fact, statement made under section 27 of the Evidence Act has not evidentiary value and on that basis, the accused was discharged.

7. In the case in hand, investigation has been carried out in a manner identical to that referred to in the case of Vinod Patidar (supra). There is no evidence against the ap