12 suspicious circumstance according to counsel was that recoveries were made in the afternoon, starting from 02:45 PM after a gap of 6 hours. The timing of Ex. P29, P30, P32, P33 and P35, are shown in this regard. It is argued that when the disclosure statements were recorded latest at 8:15 AM, the police did not offer any explanation why the recoveries took place in the afternoon only after a lapse of six hours. 23. It was further submitted that recoveries are also suspect because the details were published in newspapers, both on 22.06.2011 and 23.06.2011. Learned counsel relied on Ex. D4, published on 22.6.2011 which mentions the recovery of a pistol and knife from the accused. These recoveries were made that day at 9:30 AM and 10:35 AM. Importantly, the learned counsel argued that the chain of custody of the shoe allegedly belonging to Rahul which was seized from an open place within jurisdiction of the Annapurna police station on 22.6.2011 as propounded by the prosecution, is suspect as it was soon photographed in a newspaper published on 23.6.2011, while in the hands of the police officer. Reliance is placed on Ex. D6 in this regard. 24. It was next pointed out that the accused were produced before a magistrate on 23.6.2011. The record reveals that the arrests were made in the morning of 22.06.2011, and several articles were seized pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused and consequently, recoveries effected. However, the magistrate was not shown these articles nor was any memo produced before the magistrate at the time of the production of the accused on 23.6.2011. This procedural irregularity as highlighted by the senior counsel is contrary to Section 102(3) CrPC which requires every police officer to forthwith report seizure of any article to a magistrate having jurisdiction. Counsel relies on Umesh Tukaram Padwal & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra8, to say that noncompliance is fatal to the prosecution story. 8 (2019) 8 SCC 567