ORDER 1. Heard Mr. V.D.Sapkal, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. D.N.Salvi the learned counsel for respondent no.1-CBI. None appears for the respondent no.2, when called out. 2. The applicant is the widow of one Shri V.G.Patil who was murdered on 21.09.2005, at Jalgaon. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Mr. Panditrao Mahajan in that regard, a crime was registered at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and investigation commenced. The investigation was, thereafter, transferred to the State CID and two accused namely Raju Mali and Raju Chintaman Sonwane (respondent No.2 herein) were arrested by the CID. It appears that, the applicant was not satisfied with the investigation and therefore, approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the respondent no.1 herein. The said petition was allowed and that is how the investigation came to be transferred to the CBI. It appears that the applicant had approached this Court again by filing a writ petition praying inter, alia, that this Court should monitor the investigation. This petition was disposed of by permitting the applicant to raise her grievances at an appropriate stage, during the trial. 3. After the trial commenced, it appears that the applicant made certain applications before the Trial Court which were allowed, pursuant to which certain documents, which were not initially produced before the trial court by the Investigating Agency, were directed to be produced. 4. On 6.2.2013, after the trial had considerably advanced and after 46 witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, the applicant filed an application before the Trial Court pointing out that certain persons not examined as witnesses by the prosecution ought to be examined as witnesses. This application (Exh.523) was partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is trying the case, by an order dated 30.4.2013. However, the applicant is not satisfied with the limited success which she had before the Trial Court and has approached this Court by filing present application, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto. 6. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto. 6. The application (Exh.523) on which the impugned order came to be passed, had been made by referring to the provisions of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was for calling five persons as witnesses and also panch witnesses in respect of a panchnama dated 3.10.2005, prepared by the Investigating Officer. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the case of each of the five persons whom the applicant wanted to be examined. He decided to examine some of the witnesses mentioned in the application by the applicant. He, however, declined to examine the panch witnesses in respect of the panchnama dated 3.10.2005, holding that their evidence would not be admissible. The applicant is aggrieved by this part of the order, and is challenging the same. 8. The contention of Mr. Sapkal, the learned counsel for the applicant is basically that, it was not proper to block the entry of the evidence on the ground of admissibility, at that stage. According to him, the admissibility and/or relevancy thereof could have been judged by the trial court at the time of appreciating the evidence but, it is not in the interest of justice to block the entry of said evidence. He also submitted that due to some special features of the case, the evidence sought to be introduced against the accused is being objected to by the prosecution, rather than the accused and suggested that this was improper. The substance of his contention is that, it would be in the interest of justice to permit the evidence in question to be adduced. According to him, the same would be admissible, but even assuming that admissibility thereof requires to be considered, the same should have been and could have been done at the final stage, after permitting it to be given. 9. It might have been open for the trial court to permit the evidence to be given, subject to the question of its admissibility, to be decided later on. However, it is not possible to accept that the trial court must, in all cases, permit any evidence to be given inspite of its opinion about the inadmissibility of such evidence. 10. It might have been open for the trial court to permit the evidence to be given, subject to the question of its admissibility, to be decided later on. However, it is not possible to accept that the trial court must, in all cases, permit any evidence to be given inspite of its opinion about the inadmissibility of such evidence. 10. I have, therefore, examined as to what was the reasoning of the trial court, in deciding not to permit the evidence of the panch witnesses in respect of the panchnama dated 3.10.2005 to be given. 11. It is seen that the panchnama in question is in respect of the panchas having witnessed (heard) certain statements made by the accused Raju Chintaman Sonwane, while he was in police custody. These statements are confessional in nature and indicate what a co-accused Raju Mali -(since deceased) had done on 16.09.2005 and what conversation the said Raju Mali had with some persons. 12. On going through the panchnama, it becomes clear that it consists of the statements made by the accused Raju Sonwane, reproducing some statements allegedly made to him by the co-accused Raju Mali (since deceased). This panchnama records, that certain places were pointed out by the accused Raju Sonwane, to the police party and panchas. 13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the evidence sought to be given would not be covered by the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, because there was no ‘discovery of any fact’ which was in the exclusive knowledge of the maker of the statement and which could be said to have been ‘discovered’ in consequence of the information given by the accused Raju Sonwane. 14. I find the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be proper and legal. Though there is a reference to pointing out of the places, there is no ‘discovery’ of these places which were well known. 15. The statements of accused Raju Sonwane which were allegedly made by him before panchas, are clearly confessional in nature. They have been recorded while he was in police custody. It is, therefore, clear that they would not be admissible in evidence except where they would be covered by the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 15. The statements of accused Raju Sonwane which were allegedly made by him before panchas, are clearly confessional in nature. They have been recorded while he was in police custody. It is, therefore, clear that they would not be admissible in evidence except where they would be covered by the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Since it is not possible to hold that any fact was ‘discovered’ in consequence of the information given by the accused Raju Sonwane, they would not be admissible, being hit by the provisions of Section 25 and/or 26 of the Evidence Act. The bar under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also requires to be kept in mind in the context of use of such statements. 16. I have heard Mr. D.N.Salvi, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, in view of the submission made by Mr. Sapkal the learned counsel for the applicant that, instead of the accused persons the prosecution was objecting to the receipt of the evidence on the ground of its admissibility which was ‘strange’. On this, Mr.Salvi, the learned counsel for respondent no.1, submitted that it was the duty of the prosecution to see that unnecessary and inadmissible evidence is not brought before a Court during the trial, and there was nothing wrong in the prosecutor objecting to the production of inadmissible evidence before the Court. 17. There can be no doubt that evidence which was sought to be introduced by examining the panch witnesses is not admissible. Under section 5 of the Evidence Act, the evidence may be given of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are declared to be relevant, and of no others. Section 60 of the Evidence Act lays down that oral evidence must be ‘direct’. In case of documentary evidence, it requires primary evidence to be given except in circumstances laid down in the relevant provisions, where secondary evidence would be admissible. Thus, the Evidence Act declares not only what facts can be proved but also provides for the mode in which they may be proved. 18. In this case, what is sought to be established by examining the panch witness that the accused Raju Sonwane made certain statements before them. It is then expected that the Court should form a belief about the truth of the statements so made. 19. 18. In this case, what is sought to be established by examining the panch witness that the accused Raju Sonwane made certain statements before them. It is then expected that the Court should form a belief about the truth of the statements so made. 19. Any way, the evidence of confessional statements allegedly made by accused Raju Sonwane, which can be the only ‘fact’ which is expected to be deposed to by panchas, if examined, is specifically barred by the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, such evidence cannot be permitted to be brought on record. 20. After having came to the conclusion that the evidence in respect of the said panchnama by examining the panch witnesses for proving the statements made by Raju Sonwane would be inadmissible in evidence, it is not possible to direct the evidence to be admitted subject to the question of its admissibility to be decided during the trial, as suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is only in case of a doubt about the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence that such a course could be adopted. When the trial court has categorically held the evidence to be inadmissible, which finding of the trial court is absolutely correct, proper and legal, it is not possible to interfere in the matter. At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that the only object behind bringing the said evidence on record can be nothing else but making an attempt to prove the truth of the statements allegedly made by the accused Raju Sonwane while in the custody of Police. Such inadmissible evidence should be kept away, as insistence on giving it is only an attempt to prejudice the Court. 21. The Impugned order is proper and legal. No interference therewith is warranted. 22. Application is rejected.