( 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:- -FOR similar reasons a Panchnama made by the police cannot be regarded as a statement made by one Panch witness to another. It can be regarded as a statement made by the Panch witness to the police officer and if so it would be hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. If the Panchnama was not made during the course of the investigation. then it would not be hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. But we are not dealing with such a Panchnama.

( 2 ) THOUGH these observations and certain other observations in that decision might at first sight appear to assist Mr. Barots contention even Mr. Barot had to concede that in that judgment it has nowhere