85 accused at the time of argument pointed out that P.W. 14 failed to identify the two sim cards and the SD card. It will be wrong to say that P.W. 14 failed to identify the two sim cards (mat exhibits 8/5 and 8/6) and the SD card (mat exhibit 8/7) as because P.W. 14 in his examination in chief had mentioned these articles. Moreover, record shows that during the evidence of P.W. 14 these seized articles were opened from sealed envelopes and after that these seized articles were kept in the Malkhana of the court. Later P.W. 17 identified the two sim cards (mat exhibits 8/5 and 8/6) and the SD card (mat exhibit 8/7). One thing this court noticed in the deposition of P.W. 17 that P.W. 17 by using a pin opened the sim tray in presence of all which contained the mat exhibits 8/5, 8/6 and 8/7. But the sim tray was not opened at the time of evidence of P.W. 14 and P.W. 14 had mentioned the seized articles and these articles were within the mobile phone itself. On perusal of exhibit 36/1 this court finds that it had been signed by P.W. 14 who identified it and P.W. 17 also identified the seizure list and the seized articles. The place of seizure in the seizure list is the same place which P.W. 14 and P.W. 17 stated. It is clearly stated in exhibit 36/1 that the mobile phone is fitted with one Vodafone sim and one Jio sim and micro SD card which means inside the mobile phone. P.W. 14 had identified the mobile phone (mat exhibit 8) and mat exhibits 8/5, 8/6 and 8/7 was inside the mobile phone. There is nothing in the cross examination of either P.W. 14 or P.W. 17 that there was no search and seizure or that the search and seizure was not proper. Thus this seizure list (exhibit 36/1) is proper. In S.C Bahri V. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420 it was held that “the statements of accused persons were not reduced to writing, that also will not prevent the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Failure to record the disclosure statement is not fatal to the prosecution. What is important is that the investigating officer should credibly depose before Court regarding the fact discovered.” Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in AIR 1955 SC 104 : 1955 CrLJ 196 where it was held that “Accused made statement and led police to a who dug out incriminating articles from under earth at the instance of the accused. It is no evidence under section 27. It is evidence of conduct of the accused admissible against him along.” and also AIR 1979 SC 400 : 1979 CrLJ 329 where it was held that “Conduct of an accused during the course of an