98 Panskura P.S. case no. 381 of 2017 and her father and then in her presence victim gave her Samsung mobile and two sim cards to Atanu Santra who then seized those and she had signed on the seizure list (exhibit 4/2). P.W. 7 also identified the mat exhibit 1 and her signature in the envelope (mat exhibit 1/3). P.W. 18 stated that he had sent requisition after getting approval from superior to Smt. Kakali Ghosh Kundu, Inspector of police, O/C, POWC, Cell, CID, West Bengal to examine and record the statement of victim girl in connection with this case and the complainant cum victim produced her mobile phone of Samsung Duos and he had seized the phone under proper seizure list and identified his signature in the seizure list (exhibit 4/3) and the seizure list (exhibit 4/4). P.W. 18 also identified the mobile phone of P.W. 1 and his signature on the label (mat exhibit 1/ 4) and the envelope (mat exhibit 1/5). P.W. 18 also stated that P.W. 1 stated that she would submit certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of print out of screen shots of the nude video of her which she had enclosed with the written complaint. P.W. 18 further stated that he received a certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act issued by complainant cum victim in respect of printouts of the screen shots of downloaded videos of the complainant which were enclosed with the FIR and collected from victim at Panskur P.S. So, it appears before this court that the mobile phone of the victim was seized. There is nothing in the cross examination that the search and seizure was not proper. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 18 all identified the seizure list and the seized article and all the witnesses corroborated with each other. Thus the seizure list exhibit 4/4 is proved. Now the question is why the mobile phone of the defacto complainant was seized. The Ld. Lawyer for the accused at the time of argument submitted that the mobile phone of the victim was not sent to CFSL and it is not known as to whether the mobile phone has got a password or not. Be it mention here in that this mobile phone is not the case of the prosecution. This court wants to see whether this mobile phone has got a camera or not as P.W. 1 stated in her evidence that “I took some nude pictures and video of me in my mobile phone”. As no other source had been stated by P.W. 1 so this court will definitely presume that through mat exhibit 1 P.W. 1 had