Judgment : Per R. REGUPATHI, J. 1. The petitioner is A4 among five accused, who were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31.1.2004 and on the strength of the complaint given on the next day i. e. on 1.2.2004 the case has been taken up for investigation. In the first information report given, one Balakrishnan has been suspected as an assailant and subsequently during the course of investigation, the petitioner along with other accused, has been listed as accused. Presently, the trial is under progress. One of the listed witnesses is Govindaraman, who is the Village Administrative officer of the neighbouring place. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A4 is alleged to have given extra judicial confession to this Village Administrative Officer and during the course of investigation, the investigating officer is alleged to have examined the Village Administrative Officer and recorded the statement. During the course of trial, the examination of the Village Administrative Officer as well as the statement made to him was objected to be received as evidence, which was negatived in the order impugned. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision has been filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Village Administrative Officer is not the jurisdiction Village Administrative Officer. After the commencement of the investigation, this witness has given a statement to the investigating officer as if the petitioner has given extra judicial confession to him. As the statement has been received by the Village Administrative Officer after the commencement of the investigation, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it will be hit by Section 162 of the Evidence Act and the evidence of this witness as well as the statement of the accused should not be allowed to go in as evidence. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Kali Ram v. State of H. P. AIR 1973 SC 2773 : 1974 Crl. L.J.1 wherein, it has been held as follows: “The last piece of evidence upon which the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused consists of the confession of the accused contained in a letter PEEE sent by Sahi Ram (P.W.4) to the Station House Officer Renuka. L.J.1 wherein, it has been held as follows: “The last piece of evidence upon which the High Court has maintained the conviction of the accused consists of the confession of the accused contained in a letter PEEE sent by Sahi Ram (P.W.4) to the Station House Officer Renuka. The First question which arises for consideration in respect of letter PEEE is whether it is admissible in evidence.” 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that when the trial is under progress, such an objection need not be raised and especially when the trial Judge has observed that an opportunity will be given at the time of the argument regarding the admissibility of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the judgment in Bipin Shantial Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another AIR 2001 SC 1158 : (2001) SCC (Cri.) 417 : 2002-1-L.W. (Crl.) 115, which is followed in State v. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 641 : (2003) SCC (Cri) 1545, which reads as follows: “ 12……….the trial Judge has chosen to decide questions of admissibility of documents or other items of evidence, as and when objections thereto were raised and then detailed orders were ( sic) passed either upholding or overruling such objections. The worse part is that after passing the orders the trial court waited for days and weeks for the parties concerned to go before the higher Courts for the purpose of challenging such inter locutory orders. 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence-collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any materials is evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial Court, in case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional Court, when the same question is recanvassed could take a different view on the admissibility of that materials in such cases the appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of the evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. If the appellate or the revisional Court, when the same question is recanvassed could take a different view on the admissibility of that materials in such cases the appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of the evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. In such a situation, the higher Court may have to send the case back to the trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceeding.” 5. I have perused the materials available on record including the order impugned. Through lengthy discussion has been made in the impugned order, the learned Judge has concluded as follows: “The veracity and its applicability can be questioned after the trial is over at the time of arguments. As far as marking the extra judicial confession statement recorded by V.A.O. it can be marked and cannot be rejected.” 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. 7. The Supreme Court has clearly observed in the case State v. Navjot Sandhu (supra) that during the course of trial, the objections can be received but the result could be given at the time of delivering judgment after receiving argument by both the parties. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the learned trial Judge. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points, including the points canvassed in this revision and the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the accused, at the time of delivering the judgment, may pass orders in accordance with law. 8. With the above observation, this revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is dismissed.