702 Krishna Rao Gurumurthi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal [2007] 1 MLRA any kind hindering any officer interrogating an accused person from jotting in his note book such a vital piece of information, on which the whole case against the accused may depend. It would not take him more than a minute or so. Ideally it should be done at the moment it was made. We appreciate that the immediate concern of the police is to recover the subject-matter of the information but we fail to see how a delay of a minute or so can make any material difference. Afterwards, the officer can refer to this note as the actual information given by the accused leading to the discovery of the fact. The note may, of course, be made afterwards but as we have said, we can see no reason why it should not have been made at the time the information was given and why the police officer should forego the value of a contemporaneous record which goes so far to establish his credit as a truthful witness. So far as the trial court is concerned, it ought to be realised by all concerned, particularly by the prosecution, that the court has a clear duty to admit under section 27 only that part of the evidence which falls squarely within the provision of a statement leading to the discovery of a fact and that it would be immensely assisted in its task if the prosecution were strictly careful to limit the evidence to the actual statement given. [28] Now, the learned judge in this case began his direction on the discovery statements by asking himself the question whether they were in fact made. He then said: Having heard the evidence of the police personnel and the officers who received the two sets of information, Inspector Bubagaran and ASP Ravinder Singh, and the submissions of counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor, I am convinced that there is no ground to disallow their admission under s. 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 . I am satisfied at this stage of the trial that they are reliable for the following reasons: Firstly, although the entries in the station dairy of the D-Team had been falsified to show the three police detectives were at a different place when they were supposed to be interrogating the first accused, both Insp Bubagaran, and Jegathesan (the person who made the entry 3027 and entry 3032) had admitted that the entry was entered that way to show team participation in order to gain merits in the detective journal. What actually transpired it was explained, was that only the Inspector had gone to Sg Pari to arrest the suspect. The detectives had stayed behind at the Bilik Gerakan and were in fact interrogating the first accused there from 4.25 pm to 10.20 pm. They had also explained that the purpose of false entries was to gain some recognition in the Detective Journal for all the three of them rather than for only the Inspector as they worked as a team. I accept their explanation. As for entries 3024 and 3025, an explanation was given by ASP Mohd Zaidon (PW18) that the meeting of all the officers and personnel of his division D-7 had in fact taken place at his office and that the Inspector and the three