114 writing in 161 Cr. PC statement or not. P.W. 18 in his cross examination stated that “It is not a fact that the statements u/s 161 Cr. PC as reduced by me in writing in consonance with section 161(3) of Cr. PC”. In 51 Cr LJ 1307 (Cal); 50 Cr LJ 669 (Nag) it was held that “It is not obligatory on the police officer to record any statement made to him. But if he does reduce statements to writing, he must make a separate record of the statements of each of the persons”. The Ld. Lawyer for the accused at the time of argument stated that there is delay in recording of the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC. In Ramesh vs State (2001)1 SCC 243 it was held that “Delay in examining witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. ipso facto cannot be a ground to discard their testimony particularly when nothing tangible can be brought out in their cross-examination to impeach their evidence”. Ld. Special PP relied a citation Ram Swaroop vs State AIR 2004 SC 2943 where it was held that “Statement recorded under sec. 161 is not evidence; and as such undue importance cannot be given to such statements”. Now the question is whether there is any delay in lodging the FIR. This court is of the view regarding this that there is no delay at all as when P.W. 1 submitted written complaint and the date when she deposed before the court the video was still active and it was available in the virtual world and is also accessible and can be viewed from any part of the world. Hence the question of delay in filling the present complaint applying the straight old jacket formula is of no relevance here as well as even the same is active today. P.W. 1 clearly stated in her evidence that her “khurtuto” brother told her that while searching her surname “victim’s surname” in Google then it displayed her nude pictures and videos and the website name is pornhub and the link was big but the last three digits of the said link is 224 and then P.W. 1 searched on Google with her surname victim’s surname and then she saw it in pornhub and P.W. 1 then took screen shots of it and then with her father came to the police station on 21/7/17 and as her mental condition was not well so she dictated and her father wrote the written complaint and after that P.W. 1 read it and after understanding its content put her signatures thereon. Moreover on the date of deposition of P.W. 1 this court finds from the deposition that Ld. Special Public Prosecutor made arrangement for internet access in the court room through mobile phone wifi hot spot and the