FIR to the court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more. But in the case on hand, the delay was not small. The FIR said to have been registered on 08.03.2012 was received by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.03.2012. It is true that no question was put in cross­examination to the Investigation Officer about this delay. 66. But we have found that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is untrustworthy, particularly on the question of the origin and genesis of the first information report. Therefore the inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional court assumes significance. We agree that the word "forthwith' in Section 157(1) of the Code is to be understood in the context of the given facts and circumstances of each case and a straight­jacket formula cannot be applied in all cases. But where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and thus unacceptable, a long delay has to be taken note of by the Court. The mandate of Section 157(1) of the Code being clear, the prosecution is expected to place on record the basic foundational facts, such as, the Officer who took the first information report to the jurisdictional court, the 33