J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) AT this stage we would like to refer to the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector Udayrajasia Thakur P. W. 14 at Exhibit 47. He has stated at para 2 of his deposition that he collected at about 4 P. M. Nayakas of village Quant and Narmada and other witnesses identified the accused from amongst those persons and thereafter he interrogated him. This was during the course of investigation and hence on the face of it hit by Section 162 Cri. Pro. Code. Identification by a witness during the course of investigation is on the face of it inadmissible in evidence because it amounts to a statement made during the course of investigation. No authority is needed for this proposition of law but if it was necessary then there is a direct decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Ramkrishna Mithanlal v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC. 104 . It appears from this decision of the Supreme Court that contrary views were expressed on one hand by Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts and on the other by the Madras High Court and the Judicial Commissioners Court at Nagpur. After discussing these views of these three High Courts and the view of the Judicial Commissioners Court at Nagpur the Supreme Court has observed at para 19 as follows:in order to resolve this conflict of opinion one has to examine the purpose of test identification parades. These parades are held by the police in the course of their investigation for the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offences or to identify the persons who are concerned in the offence. They are not held merely for the purpose of identifying property or persons irrespective of their connection with the offence. Whether the police officers interrogate the identifying witnesses or the Panch witnesses who are procured by the police do so the identifying witnesses are explained the purpose of holding these parades and are asked to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or the persons who are concerned in the offence. Whether the police officers interrogate the identifying witnesses or the Panch witnesses who are procured by the police do so the identifying witnesses are explained the purpose of holding these parades and are asked to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or the persons who are concerned in the offence. IF this background is kept in view it is clear that the process of identification by the identifying witnesses involves the statement by the identifying witnesses that the particular properties identified were the subject-matter of the offence or the persons identified were concerned in the offence. This statement may be express or implied. The identifier may point out by his finger or touch the property or the person identified may either nod his head or give his assent in answer to a question addressed to him in that behalf or may make signs or gestures which are tantamount to saying that the particular property identified was the subject-matter of the offence or the person identified was concerned in the offence. All these statements express or implied including the signs and gestures would amount to a communication of the fact of Identification by the identifier to another person. THE distinction therefore which has been made by the Calcutta and the Allahabad High Courts between the mental act of identification and the communication thereof by the identifiers to another person is quite logical and such communications are tantamount to statements made by the identifier to a police officer in the course of investigation and come within the ban of Section 162. The physical fact of identification has thus no separate existence apart from the statement involved in the very process of identification and in so far as a police officer seeks to prove the fact of such identifition such evidence of his would attract the operation of Section 162 and would be inadmissible in evidence the only exception being the evidence sought to be given by the identifier himself in regard to his mental act of identification which he would. be entitled to give by way of corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial. We therefore approve of the view taken by the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts in preference to the view taken by the Madras High Court and the Judicial Commissioners Court at Nagpur. be entitled to give by way of corroboration of his identification of the accused at the trial. We therefore approve of the view taken by the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts in preference to the view taken by the Madras High Court and the Judicial Commissioners Court at Nagpur. The ratio of this decision of the Supreme Court which is quoted above clearly shows that any identification in the presence of the police officer during the course of investigation is inadmissible in evidence as hit by Section 162 Cri. Pro. Code. The Supreme Court has taken the same view again in the case of Harnath Singh v. State of M. P. AIR 1970 SC 1619 . The relevant portion of para 19 of the decision of the Supreme Court which we have quoted earlier has been reproduced at para 9 of this latter decision of the Supreme Court. ( 2 ) THIS clearly shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in allowing this part of the evidence to go on record. The P. S. I. has stated at para 3 of his deposition that he had collected the Naikas of village Quant and Narmada and others had identified the accused at that time. This is clearly hit by Section 1962 Cri. Pro. Code and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have allowed this to go on record. Not only this but the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have even discussed this aspect in his judgment at para 17 This was highly improper on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We are inclined to keep this part of the evidence out of our consideration as it is on the face of it inadmissible in evidence. .