110 reason is self deleted which clearly means that the accused himself was trying to tamper with the evidence and hence it is the clear proof that accused had caused the disappearance of evidence and thus his intention was malafide. During the examination of the accused u/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused stated that truth will be revealed if this court sees the Inspection Memo but the Inspection Memo was not been exhibited and proved by prosecution but the defense put the question to P.W. 17 without exhibiting or proving or relying the same in primary form or in secondary form. The date in “Inspection Memo” was not proved through P.W. 17 by defense by primary or secondary evidence. P.W. 17 posted the date 19/7/2017 instead of 21/7/2017 in the Inspection Memo but other circumstantial, direct evidence proves that it was a bonafide mistake as there was search and seizure on 21/7/17. It was also proved that mat exhibit 8 was recovered from the possession of the accused and seizure list was prepared and there was nothing from the defense side that there was no seizure on 21/7/17. Section 22 lays down that the contents of the documents can be proved by the documents itself and not by oral evidence. The contents of a document capable of being produced must be proved by the instrument and not by parole evidence. Under the provisions of the Evidence Act the contents of the documents are proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. According to Section 64, the document must be proved by primary evidence, i.e., by producing the document itself. In absence of primary evidence it can be proved by secondary evidence under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 22, accordingly, states that oral evidence as to the contents of a document will be relevant only when the secondary evidence of the document can be given under this section. In the present case the obvious errors of writing wrong date in inspection memo (written 19/7/2017 instead of 21/7/2017) is only insignificant procedural irregularity and is of no significance because with ample evidence the fact of initiation of FIR and first seizure was proved to be on 21/7/2017 and not on 19/7/2017 and in this context this court relies the judgment K.M. Ramajayam vs Inspector of Police Chennai 2016 Cr LJ 1542 (Mad) where it was held that “Procedural irregularity, even if