In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court hold that the custodial discovery rule—now…

In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828 (paras 11–13), the Supreme Court held that the expression 'Provided that' together with the phrase 'whether it amounts to a confession or not' in the custodial discovery provision—now the proviso to Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872)—shows that it is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly barring confessions made to a police officer or in police custody (now sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Adhiniyam, formerly Sections 25 and 26 IEA), while expressly finding it unnecessary to decide whether the exception also qualifies the rule excluding involuntary confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise (now Section 22 BSA, formerly Section 24 IEA). The Court further explained that the word 'distinctly' means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly', and 'unmistakably', and severed the accused's statement so that only the portion pointing to the place of deposit of the three stolen chemical drums was admissible.