concept of playing or transmission of such documents cannot amount or be equated to the actual production thereof. The video recording is in line with section 15(4) of Delta state Administration of criminal justice law 2017 a completion of this section in summary of the above is that since the content of the video is relevant to the proof of the offence, the allegation that the statement was taken from the video recording, to confirm this, same must be demonstrated. See NDrDr V STATE (2007)13 NWLR (PT1O52) AT 659 PAR C-D. Having not demonstrated same in the open court, it means that offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the video exhibit was merely dumped on the trial. The implication is that having utilized the undemonstrated video to reach findings in the judgment, it is against the principles of fairness, there was no cross examination on the content of the video, it was not challenged nor shown to the respondent in open court. Am afraid, the analysis behind the court is unacceptable in law and cannot hold waten Section 15(4) b of the Delta State Administration of -Criminal Justice Law 20L7 is to the effect that "Provided that in the absence of video facility such statement shall be made in writing in the presence of any person of his choice"' On the whole, I have no hesitation to find that both evidence in proof of the offence though admissible (EXH Pl & P3) have not passed the veracity test nor followed the procedure necessary for its proof, therefore cannot be held to be credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which is the yardstick for proof in criminal matters. I resolve the sole issue in favour of the Appellant. The appeal has merit and is allowed. The judgement of the Delta State High Court, Asaba division in Suit No: A/LCIZ:O}O delivered on the 23'd cA.AS.40C.2022 19 lPagt