( 1 ) WE would like to mention here that accused No. 2 Daya Jina gave a complaint to the Police Officer on 16-7-1982 which was given mark A by the learned trial Judge at the time on recording evidence but at the time of delivering judgment the learned trial Judge relying upon the decision of this Court in RABARI KHIMA GANDA V. STATE OF GUJARAT 20 G. L. R. 847 held that the said complaint is not hit by section 162 Cri. Pro. Code and therefore admissible in evidence. The evidence of P. S. I. Tirmiji P. W. 15 Ex. 57 shows that he took over the investigation of this case on 16-7-1981 at about 3-30 P. M. and on that day he arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and attached the muddamal weapons and blood stained clothes of accused No. 1 and then arrested accused Nos. 3? 4. and 5 and then attached the muddamal weapons from them and then recorded the complaint mark A of accused No. 2 Daya Jina. This evidence shows he did further investigation in the matter and then submitted charge-sheet to the Court on 14-10-1981. This shows that the P. S. I. Tirmiji was the investigating officer in this case. His evidence at para. 13 also shows that after arresting accused Nos. 1 and 2 he recorded their statements as accused in this case and at that time accused No. 2 said that he was beaten and he felt that a cognizable offence was committed and hence he asked accused No. 2 Daya to give his complaint and thereafter he recorded the complaint Mark A of accused No. 2. Inspite of this the learned trial Judge has with respect to him at para. 6 of his judgment that the P. S. I. did not do any other investigative work and therefore. the statements were not hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. We may also mention here that the learned Judge himself has observed at para. of his judgment that P. S. I. Tirmiji P. W. 15 was the investigating officer who completed the investigation and charge-sheeted the accused. In view of this it is difficult to understand how the learned trial Judge came to observe that the P. S. I. had not done any other investigative work except arresting the accused and recording their statements. Even arresting the accused attaching the muddamal weapons and cloths of accused No. 1 and recording statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 was on the face of it during the course of investigation of this case. On these facts it is clear that mark A though styled as a complaint was in fact a statement of accused No. 2 recorded during the course on investigation and therefore hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. We may mention here that in the case of Rabari Khima Ganda (Supra) this Court has only laid down as to what is the test to be applied in deciding whether a particular statement though styled as a complaint is in fact a complaint or whether it is hit by sec. 162 Cri. Pro. Code. The Division Bench has observed at para. 16 of the judgment after referring to several decisions as follows:-"thus whether a document produced as a counter - complaint in a given case after investigation has started upon another complaint is inadmissible in evidence under sec. 162 (1) of the Code depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case". We may mention here that only the portion approved for reporting has been reported. That reported portion does not show as to whether on the facts of that case the statement of the accused styled as a complaint was held to be admissible. Hence we have looked into the original judgment of this Court in the case of Rabari Khima Ganda (supra ). It appears that in that case it was contended by the accused that the complaint given by him was admissible in evidence because it supported his plea of self-defence while it was contended by the learned public prosecutor that it was hit by sec. 162 of the Code. In that case also it appears that the accused in that case was first questioned by one Sub-divisional Police Officer Mr. Mahapatra and the accused complained before him that he was also beaten and thereafter his complaint was recor