JUDGMENT - VAGYANI B.B., J.:---Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 3. The present petitioners are prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are being tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded. Wamanrao Mundhe and Apparao Mundhe were called to act as panchas in the matter of recovery of knife under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to prosecution, accused Madan Panchal while in police custody made a confessional statement on 17-4-1998 before the abovenamed panchas and police that he would point out the place where the knife was concealed. While recording the oral evidence of panch witness Wamanrao Mundhe, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded recorded admissible portion of the statement leading to discovery of concealed weapon along with inadmissible portion. The said statement is as under: "Accused No. 1 Madan made a statement before police and we panchas that he is ready to show the knife used by him for assaulting deceased Jairam." 4. The defence Counsel promptly raised an objection with regard to inadmissible portion of the statement. According to the defence Counsel, the portion of the statement "used by him for assaulting deceased Jairam" is inadmissible and, therefore, it should be deleted from deposition of the panch witness. The learned A.P.P., strongly raised an objection for deletion of the inadmissible portion on the ground that the question of admissibility or vice versa is not required to be considered while recording the evidence of a witness and the Court has to record whole of the answer given by the witness to the relevant question. 5. After hearing the learned defence Counsel and the learned A.P.P., the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge overruled the objection raised by the defence Counsel on the ground that the objection is raised after the statement is recorded and that the evidentiary value of the statement to which objection is raised, can be considered at the time of appreciating evidence and writing judgment. Feeling dissatisfied by the impugned order of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 11-8-1999, the petitioners-original accused have filed this criminal revision application. 6. Feeling dissatisfied by the impugned order of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 11-8-1999, the petitioners-original accused have filed this criminal revision application. 6. Smt. Daxini, learned Counsel forcefully submitted that the extent of information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. According to her, section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery, only that much statement is admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. However, the statement which is not distinctly related to the discovery but relates to commission of offence, is not admissible. The statement "he is ready to show the knife" is admissible in evidence. But further statement "used by him for assaulting deceased Jairam" inadmissible in evidence. Therefore the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge should not have recorded the inadmissible portion of the statement. 7. Shri Gaikwad, learned A.P.P., has half heartedly supported the impugned order under challenge. 8. The requisite condition necessary for pressing in it to service the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is that the discovery of a fact must be first deposed to and thereupon so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, is required to be proved. If the very scope of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is taken into consideration, the first part of the statement of the accused is certainly admissible in evidence. However, the latter part of the statement with regard to use of the weapon for the purpose of assaulting deceased Jairam does not at all distinctly relate to the discovery of knife. Therefore, the latter part of the statement is inadmissible in evidence. A reference with profit can be made to a case of (Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor)1, A.I.R. 1947 Privy Council 67. From careful reading of the Privy Council's case, it is abundantly made clear that the information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words are added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of knife in the house of the informant. 9. If regard is had to the well settled legal position as discussed above, I am constrained to observe that the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well the Additional Public Prosecutor misconstrued the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both of them failed to take into consideration the legal position emerged out from section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in recording the inadmissible portion of the statement made by the accused. The reasons assigned for rejecting the strong objection of the defence Counsel are patently erroneous and are not in conformity with section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10. On perusal of the impugned order under challenge, it is seen that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already observed that he will consider the evidentiary value of the statement objected at the time of appreciation of evidence and writing judgment. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for. I hope that the legal position pointed out above will percolate smoothly to desired distinction. 11. Criminal revision application filed by the petitioners original accused is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. Revision application dismissed. -----