TULZAPURKAR J- The question that has been referred to the Full Bench runs as follows:

"Whether the documents like Ex. 28, being the statement of the complainant recorded by Police Sub-Inspector Sarakwas (P. W. 13), Ex. 33 being the first panchanama made in the presence of panchas and signed by the panchas, Ex. 34 being the second panchanama prepared under the signature of the; panchas by Police Sub-Inspector Sarakwas (P. W. 13) after the trap was successful and Ex. 35 being panchanama prepared by Police Sub-Inspector Sarakwas (P. W. 13) are in any manner hit by the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if at all to what extent and whether they can be entirely excluded as inadmissible?"

2. The question framed arises in these circumstances: In the year 1967 one Vidyadhar Bakare was appointed an Arbitrator for Town Planning Scheme Nos. I and III and the locality known as Parvati was included in Scheme No. III. The Scheme was prepared by Poona Municipality in the year 1934 and thereafter the draft scheme was approved in the year 1943. Various arbitrators were appointed but ultimately it was Vidyadhar Bakare who was incharge of implementation of the Sc