IMPORTANT POINT
Objections regarding admissibility of evidence if raised during examination of witness it should be taken note of and can be decided at final judgment stage.

JUDGMENT

J.R Vora. J.- This Revision Application is filed by the State against the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Mehsana, in Session Case No. 58 of 1990 during depositin of witness PW. 16 Exh. 126 Dr. Smt. S.L.Vaya. by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that the statements recorded by this witness f the accused respondents are confessional in nature and. therefore, are not admissible and further that the witness had no authority under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to obtain statements of the accused and. therefore the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the statements recorded by this witness were not admissible and further the learned Addl. Sessions Judge closed the evidence of witness and hence the State has filed this Revision Application against the said order passed on 5th of December. 1991 duping the deposition of the above-said witness.

2. The facts go to show that the present respondent along-with other accused are charged under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and are being tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 58/90. It is the case of the prosecution that the present three respondents during police remand were subjected to "Lie Detection Test" carried out by Dr. Smt. S.L.Vaya. PW 16 Exh. 126. While deposition was being recorded in examination-in-chief, the objection was raised that the statements recorded by PW 16 is confessional in nature and she had no authority to record the statement of the accused though it was urged on behalf of the prosecution that the evidence was relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge not only held that the statements of the accused were inadmissible but closed the evidence of the witness PW.16 at that stage.

3. Learned Advocate General Mr. S.N. Shelat was heard on behalf of the State-petitioner and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. A.D. Shah was heard on behalf of respondent No. 1. While learned advocates for respondents No.2 and 3 are not present.

4. Learned Advocate General Mr. Shelat raised two contentions. First was regarding the stage at which the Court should decide the objections raised during recording of evidence. It was contended that it was obligatory for the learned Additional Sessions Judge first to record the evidence fully and then to come finally at the conclusion that what evidence is admissible and relevant. It was utterly erroneous as contended by learned Advocate General Mr. Shelat that at this stage for the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion while recording the evidence that the statements were not admissible and that it was -also utterly erroneous to close the evidence of PW. 16. The other contention which Mr. Shelat urged was in respect of the legal aspects that the evidence of PW16 was relevant under Section 4-5 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code Sub-sec. (4)(e) and it was also urged that PW.16 is not a Police Officer and, therefore, the statements recorded by her of the present respondent is not hit by Section 25 or 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Advocate General Mr. Shelat contended that the statements were relevant and admissible as extra judicial confession. At last, it was urged that learned Judge ought to have allowed to continue the deposition and take the evidence on record and thereafter ought to have come to the conclusion that which part of the evidence is relevant and admissible and which part of the evidence is not relevant and inadmissible. For the contention regarding the stage at which the Court is required to decide the objections, learned Advocate General relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State Gujarat, reported in 2000 (2) GLH, 545, wherein the Supreme Court deprecated archaic practice of trial Courts not to proceed further without passing order on an objection rega