VALIBHAI OMARJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Barot contended that the learned trial Judge was in error in admitting the Panchnama Ex. 7 in evidence and in relying upon it and contended that the Panchnama Ex. 7 was inadmissible and was hit by the provisions of sec. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Naginlal Nandlal v. The State of Gujarat 1961 G. L. R. 664. Mr. Barot in particular relied upon a passage in that decision occurring at page 673 of the report where it has been stated:- -

(2.) Though these observations and certain other observations in that decision might at first sight appear to assist Mr. Barot's contention even Mr. Barot had to concede that in that judgment it has nowhere been laid down that a Panchnama made in a corruption case is necessarily a statement communicated to a police officer and therefore is hit by sec. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certain observations in that judgment were evidently made in the context of the Panchnama which was relied upon by the prosecution in that case which as we find from a perusal of that Panchnama did in fact contain several statements which fell under sec. 162 of the Code and which were obviously inadmissible. A Panchnama is essentially a document recording certain things which occur in the presence of Panchas and which are seen and heard by them. Panchas are taken to the scene of the offence to see and hear certain things and subsequently they are examined at the trial to depose to those things and their evidence is relied upon in support of the testimony of an Investigating Officer. A Panchnama recorded on such a occasion is in its turn relied upon in support of the evidence of the Panchas as a statement previously made by them under sec. 157 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) In Emperor V. Mohanlal Bababhai 43 B. L. R. 163 Beaumont C. J. and Sen J. observed thus:- -