From the above case the confessional statement of the accused ought not be admitted in evidence in the absence of the I.P.O. This court will not act on the said confessional statement Exhibit H1 and H2 respectively. See OLUKADE v ALADE (1976) 2 SC 183 where the court held as follows: “A court is expected in all proceedings before it to admit and act only on evidence which is admissible in law (i.e. under the Evidence Act or any relevant law in a particular case or matter) and so if a court should inadvertently admit inadmissible evidence it has the duty not to act on it” See also SHITTU v FASHAWE 2005 7 SC Pt 11 Pg 118 where the Supreme Court held as follows: “The law is that even where inadmissible evidence is admitted, the trial judge or an appellate court should reject the evidence and after expunging such evidence shall consider if there is any remaining legal evidence to sustain the claim” In the No Case Submission made to the court on behalf of the accused person by his counsel, the court had already discharged and acquitted the accused on the offence of theft punishable under Section 187 of the Penal Code; the only remaining counts relate to Section 364 and Section 366 of the Penal Code, Section 364 and 366 state as follows: (364) whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with fine or with both. 9