A. N. SURTI, J. ( 1 ) ). But Mr. Shethnas criticism on the evidence of this natural witness was that the did sign the police statement which he had given before the police on the day of the occurrence. It may be stated that in this behalf we may usefully refer to the reported decision of the Full Bench of this Court in NATHU MANDU V. STATE 18 G. L. R. 1041 wherein it is observed as follows:-"the evidence of a witness whose statement is recorded in the course of investigation under Chapter 12 of the Criminal Procedure Code if read over to him before the witness steps into the witness box does not become inadmissible; Its probative value has to be judged in the circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that in all such cases the evidence of such witness will be of no value whatsoever. " ( 2 ) ). In the instant case the witness has only deposed before the learned trial Judge that he merely signed the statement. His evidence does not disclose that he referred to the police statement or he actually read the police statement when he was in the witness box. His evidence also does not show that the police read over the police statement before he entered the witness box. ( 3 ) ). At this stage we may also usefully refer to the decision of the Privy Council in ZAHIRUDDIN V. EMPEROR A. I. R. (34) 1947 PRIVY COUNCIL 75 wherein the Privy Council observed as follows:-"the effect of a contravention of sec. 162 (1) depends on the prohibition which has been contravened. If the contravention consists in the signing of a statement made to the police and reduced into writing the evidence of the witness who signed it does not become inadmissible. There are no words either in the section or elsewhere in the statute which express or imply such a consequence. Still less can it be said that the statute has the effect of vitiating the whole proceedings when evidence is given by a witness who has signed such a statement. But the value of his evidence may be seriously impaired as a consequence of the contravention of this statutory safeguard against improper practices. Still less can it be said that the statute has the effect of vitiating the whole proceedings when evidence is given by a witness who has signed such a statement. But the value of his evidence may be seriously impaired as a consequence of the contravention of this statutory safeguard against improper practices. The use by a witness while he is giving evidence of a statement made by him to the police raises different considerations. The categorical prohibition of such use would be merely disregarded if reliance were to be placed on the evidence of a witness who had made material use of the statement when he was giving evidence at the trial. When therefore the Magistrate or presiding Judge discovers that a witness has made material use of such a statement it is his duty under the section to disregard the evidence of that witness as inadmissible. And where the Magistrate has so disregarded the evidence and acquitted sec. 537 cannot apply to the case. ( 4 ) ). In the aforesaid Privy Council case it may be significantly noticed that the prosecution witness had previously given statement to the police and he made use of the signed statement to prompt his memory when he was giving evidence before the learned trial Judge. Suffice it to say that the facts before the Privy Council were fairly cross and hence the evidence of the said prosecution witness was not acceptable. ( 5 ) ). In the case before us the natural witness Ratilal-P. W. 2 had merely signed the statement. It is something entirely different that Ratilal had given a signed statement. The giving of signed statement is something entirely different from merely signing the statement. Moreover in the instant case the evidence of Ratilal-P. W. 2 does not disclose that he used the Police Statement either to prompt his memory or to answer the question which came from the bar. Under the circumstances it is not possible for us to accept the submission of Mr. Shethna that we should reject the evidence of Ratilal-P. W. 2 as his evidence suffers from the vice of his police statement being signed by him. Appeals dismissed. .