ORDER :- In February 1953 one Padmaraju Konetiraju filed a petition under S. 145, Criminal P.C., before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chandragiri, and the learned Magistrate sent it to the police for report. During the course of their enquiries the police examined among others a man called Subbaraju. On the report of the police the Magistrate called upon the parties concerned to out in written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter he commenced his enquiry in the usual manner, and Subbaraj was examined on behalf of "B" party. Counsel for "A" party wanted to cross-examine Subbaraju, with reference to certain statements he had made to the police during the course of their enquiry. Counsel for B" party objected on the ground that the statement fell within the ban of S. 162, Criminal P.C., and that objection was upheld by the learned Magistrate. The present petition has been filed to set aside that order.

2. It seems to me that the order of the learned Magistrate is clearly erroneous. Section 162, Criminal P.C., refers not to every statement recorded by the police, but only to statements made to