59 which had been seized from SI Barun Kumar Nayek and P.W. 18 mentioned exhibit C and also stated that he had prepared the label (mat exhibit 4/10) and also signed into it along with date (mat exhibit 4/11). P.W. 18 identified the DVD (mat exhibit 5/3) which had been seized from SI Barun Kumar Nayek and P.W. 18 mentioned exhibit D and also stated that he had prepared the label (mat exhibit 5/10) and also signed into it along with date (mat exhibit 5/11). Now section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act states about - “How much of information received from accused may be proved” and two essential requirements for the application of this section are that (i) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (ii) he must also in police custody. On perusal of exhibit 29/9 this court finds that its the Disclosure Memo of the remand accused of this case and it had been duly signed by P.W. 10 and also identified the signatures and date of his friend Uttam Dolui and P.W. 18 also signed in to it. At the time of argument Ld. Special PP relied upon a citation in respect of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act reported in (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 249 where it was held that “Discovery of concealed article is fact discovered”. In this context Ld. Lawyer for the accused referred a citation reported in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs King Emperor and argued that in this case section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is not applicable as because there was no discovery at all as the URL has already been mentioned in the written complaint. On careful reading of the said citation this court is of the view that this citation is not applicable in this case as because even though only one URL had been mentioned in the written complaint but here in this case several other URL were discovered which contained the nude pictures and videos of P.W. 1. Now, according to exhibit 29/9 this court further finds that URL links are mentioned. The question is how much of the information would go into evidence u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act despite the fact that the information was given by the accused to the police while he was police custody and only that part of the information supplied by the accused which is direct and immediate cause of discovery will go into evidence. Discovery of fact must be in consequence of information given by the accused. In Anter Singh vs State (2004) 10 SCC 657: AIR 2004 SC 2865: 2004 Cr LJ 1380 it was held that - “the information was clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery”. It is now the settled legal position