Panchnama admissibility under Section 162 CrPC depends on whether it records statements to police during investigation, not mere observations.

A panchnama in a corruption case is not excluded under Section 162 CrPC merely because it is written by a police officer or kept in police custody. Section 162 applies only where the material records a statement made to a police officer during investigation; a panchnama that merely records what the panchas saw and heard remains admissible. Such a document may also corroborate the panchas' testimony under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Only any portion that actually amounts to a statement to the investigating officer would be excluded. On the facts noted, no such excluded statement was shown, so the objection to admissibility failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a panchnama prepared in a corruption case was inadmissible in evidence under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or could be used as a previous statement for corroboration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: A panchnama is a record of what the panchas saw and heard. It does not fall within Section 162 merely because it is written out by a police officer or kept in police custody. For Section 162 to apply, the statement must be made to a police officer and in the course of investigation. If the panchnama only records observed facts and does not contain a statement communicated to the investigating officer, it remains admissible and may support the testimony of the panchas under Section 157. Only the portions, if any, that amount to statements to a police officer during investigation would be excluded.

Conclusion: The panchnama was not shown to contain any statement falling within Section 162, and its admission in evidence was . The contention that it was inadmissible failed, in favour of the respondent.

---