ORDER : 1. Mr. H.S. Dubey, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Geet Sukhwani, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.R.S. Chouhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 4-11-2016 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 265/2016 whereby it has directed to consider the objection raised by the defence as well as the prosecution at the time of pronouncement of the judgment. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, S.T. No. 265/2016 for offences punishable under sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is pending for trial against the petitioner and other accused persons. On 3-11-2016 the case was taken up for recording the evidence of prosecution witness- Narendra. According to the prosecution, Narendra is a witness to the memorandum. An objection was raised by the defence counsel that the statement of Narendra with regard to memorandum and the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be recorded in the light of sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The same was opposed by the prosecution stating that the memorandum was recorded by the police officer in presence of the witness. Subsequently on 4-11-2016, learned trial Court ordered that the objection raised by defence as well as the prosecution will be dealt at the time of final disposal of the case. 3. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is an accused and his memorandum has been allegedly recorded on 2-6-2016 by a police officer in presence of witnesses Deepak and Narendra. This memorandum runs into two full pages. On perusal of the same, it seems that, it is mentioned that discovery of the articles i.e. mobile phone, iron rod, purse and one cutter, etc. were hidden near Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple. But many things which are hit under sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are mentioned in the memorandum. 4. For better disposal of the petition, provisions of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are worth reproducing which are as follows: “25. were hidden near Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple. But many things which are hit under sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are mentioned in the memorandum. 4. For better disposal of the petition, provisions of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are worth reproducing which are as follows: “25. Confession to police officer not to be proved - No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him. No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Explanation - In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882). 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 5. As it is clear that no confession made before the police officer shall be proved against the person and confession by the accused while in custody of police is also not to be proved against him. But the part of confession irrespective of the fact that it is a confession or not, can be proved distinctly when there is some discovery. To put it in other words, for the application of section 27 the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admissible portion. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest, which must be excised (sic. excluded) and rejected. 6. In this regard reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest, which must be excised (sic. excluded) and rejected. 6. In this regard reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Inayatullah vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483 wherein it is made clear that “Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statements in the ordinary course of events. In Indian Law, there is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. Under section 27, a confession made by an accused person while he is in custody must be excluded from evidence and permits the admission of such confession under the condition prescribed by this section i.e. to cause discovery of weapons, etc.” Thus, section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be summerised as follows: (a) there must be information. (b) it does not matter whether the information amounts to confession or not. (c) that person must be in the custody of a police officer. (d) in consequence of the information a fact must be deposed to as discovered. (e) in such a case so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. 7. This petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned trial Court to follow the above guidelines. C.C. as per rules.