ORDER S.M. Samvatsar, J. Facts giving rise to this revision application are that the non-applicant Abdul Razak is being prosecuted in the Court of Magistrate, First Class, Mhow, under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code. During the course of the inquiry before the Magistrate the investigating officer Mr. Mishra produced a list of stolen property. The accused non-applicant objected to the production of this document contending that its production was barred by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court upheld the contention of the accused and refused to allow the prosecution to produce the list. The State preferred a revision application against this order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, who heard the revision application being of the opinion that the order of the trial Court was erroneous, has referred the case to this Court under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure with a recommendation that the same should be quashed and the list should be allowed to be produced. Section 162, Criminal Procedure provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall, if reduced into writing be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police-diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. It is contended on behalf of the accused that the list of stolen property which the prosecution wants to produce at this stage is a statement made by the complainant to the police officer during the course of investigation of the offence and is therefore inadmissible in evidence excepting for one of the purposes specified in Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. This section however applies to a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of investigation. The question in each case therefore is, whether the statement or the list sought to be produced was made to a police officer during the course of investigation, that is, after the investigation had commenced. This section however applies to a statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of investigation. The question in each case therefore is, whether the statement or the list sought to be produced was made to a police officer during the course of investigation, that is, after the investigation had commenced. The investigation is not commenced merely by the filing of the first information report nor can it be said to have started by the mere fact that the investigating officer had left the police station and reached the place where the offence is committed. This has been the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad in Bhondu v. Rex AIR 1949 All. 364. It is held in that case that the investigation does not start by the mere fact that the first information has been lodged to the police. The police may choose to investigate into the offence either immediately or after some time or may wait for further information before it makes up its mind to investigate into it. It cannot, therefore, be said that the investigation starts as soon as first information report is made to the police. An investigation may be said to have commenced only when a step in the ascertainment of the actual offence and of the culprits thereof is taken. The mere fact that the investigating officer starts from the police station to the scene of occurrence is not commencement of the investigation. The first information lodged with the police may not be a complete document as will be the case when in the case of a robbery or dacoity the list of the stolen goods is not mentioned therein. Such a list supplementing the first information report would be merely a part of that report and not a part of the investigation. This has also been the view taken by the High Court of Madhya Bharat in Jagdamba Prasad v. State MLR 1956 Cri. 405. In the instant case Mr. Mishra, the investigating officer has filed a statement in writing before the Sessions Judge in which he has stated that investigation had not commenced when he obtained the list, now sought to be produced, from the complainant. 405. In the instant case Mr. Mishra, the investigating officer has filed a statement in writing before the Sessions Judge in which he has stated that investigation had not commenced when he obtained the list, now sought to be produced, from the complainant. On this statement the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that the list could not be excluded under Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure and that it should have been allowed to be produced. I accept the reference, set aside the order of the trial Magistrate and allow the prosecution to produce the list in evidence as part of first information report itself. Application allowed.