84 of law that in the absence of independent witnesses being associated with search, the seizure cannot be relied upon” and Ram Kumar vs State (NCT) of Delhi AIR 1999 SC 2259 where it was held that “Where no independent witness is available, the evidence of the police officers can not be discarded when it is found to be reliable”. The Ld. Lawyer for the accused at the time of argument referred a citations (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 44 and AIR 1981 Cal 157 and on perusal of the said citations this court finds that those are not applicable in this case. If the seizure list was not proper then the defense side could have adduced the evidences of Ardhendu Sesher Boxi and Amalendu Sekhar Boxi in D.W. as record shows that Ardhendu Sesher Boxi and Amalendu Sekhar Boxi also signed on the seizure list and it also appears from the case record that Ardhendu Sesher Boxi and Amalendu Sekhar Boxi are the uncles of the accused. P.W. 18 stated that O/C Panskura through proper challan handed over the seized articles namely one HP Invent Laptop having serial no. CND4348N8B model no. 15-RO74TU along with its power adaptor, one Moto mobile phone having model no. XT1635-02, IMEI No. 358960061307271 and 358960061307289 fitted with one Vodafone sim having ICCID no. 89916716237800183385Y and one Jio sim over which black mark K1 is there as ICCID is illegible and one sandisk ultra micro SD card of 16 GB and P.W. 18 had marked the articles as exhibits A and B respectively and identified all the seized articles before the court and after receiving the seized mobile and its charger along with the two sim cards and the SD card P.W. 18 put the same in an envelope and prepared label typed by him and signed by him and addressed to the Director, CFSL as P.W. 18 wanted to send the same to the CFSL. P.W. 18 identified the said envelope along with the said label (mat exhibit 8/8). P.W. 18 also stated that on 21/8/17 he sent the these articles to the Director, CFSL, Kolkata duly forwarded by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur and those exhibits are one Moto mobile phone having model no. XT1635-02, IMEI No. 358960061307271 and 358960061307289 fitted with one Vodafone sim and one Jio sim. P.W. 18 identified the duplicate CFSL form (exhibit 53). So, it appears that the seizure witness P.W. 14 identified the seized articles the HP laptop and the mobile phone. Ld. Lawyer for the