( 1 ) THE following questions have been referred to this Full Bench by the Division Bench:- (1) Is the evidence of a witness whose statement recorded in the course of investigation under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code if read over to him before the witness steps into witness box becomes inadmissible or such as would be of no value whatsoever ? (2) Does such contravention of sec. 162 (1) effect admissibility or probative value of the evidence of such a witness ? (3) Does reading over of such statement to a witness before he enters witness box amount to use of such statement contrary to sec. 162 (1) ? These questions have arisen in the following circumstances:-

( 2 ) IN sessions case No. 4 of 1976 from which this appeal arises two witnesses for the prosecution name Limji Ukad P. W. 10 Ex. 17 and Chhaganbhai Vishalabhai P. W. 11 Ex. 18 were called to prove an extra judicial confession alleged to have been made before them by the accused. In the course of cross-examination Limji Ukad stated that in the morning of the day of his deposition his statement was read over to him by police and the police told him to give evidence in accordance with his police statement. In the course of cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he was falsely involving the accused; and added that he had stated what and happened.

( 3 ) THE other witness Chhaganbhai Vishalbhai said in his cross-examination that police had read over to him in that morning his statement recorded by police and police told him to give evidence according to what he knew. He asserted that police had not told him to give evidence according to the it police statement.

( 4 ) IN this appeal it was contended before the Division Bench on behalf often accused appellant that reading over of the police statements to the respective witnesses amounted to use of police statements contrary to the provisions of sec. 162 (1) of the (Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (the Code) and therefore the entire evidence of these two witnesses was inadmissidle Reliance in this connection was placed on a decision of the Privy Council reported as ZAHIRUDDIN V. EMPEROR A. I. R. 1947 P. C. 75 and the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in STATE V. MAGANBHAI ZAVERBHAI AND OTHERS Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 1953 decided by Bavdekar and Vyas JJ on September 29 1953 It was pointed out that a similar state. ment was made by witness Bai Sabu in her cross-examination and her evidence was held inadmissible. It was also pointed out that in the context of a similar statement made by one witness Ladha Jivraj a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Divan and J. B. Mehta JJ. followed the aforesaid two decisions and held the evidence of Ladha Jivraj inadmissible. This decision was rendered in the case of KATHI MOTI LAKHA AND TWO OTHERS V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 1962 DECIDED ON 21/22nd NOVEMBER 1963. The Division Bench in the present appeal referred to another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in KAMBI VAGHAJI V. STATE A. I. R. 1968 GUJARAT 11; and it was of the view that there is an apparent conflict between the decisions of the two Division Benches of this court. Therefore it has made this reference.

( 5 ) TO my mind the questions referred are of general importance and need a final and authoritative answer based on the correct interpretation of the prohibition against use of police statements enacted in sec. 162 (1) of the Code. If they are not answered finally there would be scope for uncertainty as to the correct legal position. Besides in any case the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kathi Moti Lakhas case which held the substantive evidence given by a witness wholly inadmissible merely because the police statement was read over to the witness and he was told to depose accordingly does speaking with respect require recon- sideration and in this context the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in