Counsel therefore urged the court to expunge Exhibit B, it being inadmissible. Also the learned trial Judge admitted Exhibit B, the proceedings from A. E. Archibong J when same was not certified by him. Counsel argued further that when a trial starts de novo, all steps taken in the previous court abates. See Eke vs. Akpu (2010) All FWLR pt 510 page 640, Bamayi vs. State (2006) 12 NWLR pt 994 page 221. Counsel reiterated that the conditions stipulated in S. 39 and S. 46 Evidence Act 2011 were not fulfilled as the prosecution did not say why their witnesses were not produced to give evidence in the 2nd court. It was therefore wrong for the trial court to rely upon the evidence that was found in Exhibit B, to convict the Appellant. See Dada Vs. Bankole (2008) 1 SCNJ page 244 page 253, Oguntayo Vs. Adelegu (2009) 7 SCNJ page 390. Counsel therefore urged the court to resolve issue 2 and 3 in favour of the Appellant. In response, the learned counsel to the respondent, submitted that the PW3 - Investigating police Officer's evidence to the court is admissible in court as the witnesses could not be traced. Counsel argued that there was substantial compliance of S. 39 and S. 46(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. Exhibit B was brought from proper custody of PW2 - the ACR and therefore admissible. See S. 295 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, Laws of Akwa Ibom State. The fact that the case was heard on the 29th July, 2004 and same signed and given a later date of the 27th July, 2005 cannot vitiate the genuiness of the original record of that court which was properly certified. Counsel submitted that there is a presumption of correctness of Exhibit B tendered by the ACR - PW 2. If it were not correct, it is the duty of the appellant to file an affidavit stating so. See Ukwuyok vs. Ogbulu (2010) 5 NWLR pt 1187 page 316, Ngige vs. Obi (2006) 14 NWLR pt. 999 page 1, Idakula vs. Richards (2001) 1 NWLR pt 693 page 111, Agbeutu vs. Brisibe (2005) 10 NWLR pt. 932 page 1, Abatan vs. Anudu (2004) 17 NWLR pt 902 page 430. S.147 of the Evidence Act 2011 raises the presumption that the contents of Exhibit B was genuine and properly admitted. There was also substantial compliance of S.