111 there is any cannot vitiate the search and seizure, unless it is shown that some prejudice has been caused to the accused”. In many cases questions were put in the cross-examination of the witnesses as to whether it had been stated to the I.O. or not. P.W. 11 Barun Kumar Nayek and P.W. 16 Gunasindhu Sahoo were mostly related to seizure or procedures effected before I.O. which has been otherwise proved through seizure list and seizure witnesses. Hence minor discrepancies i.e. the omissions which are not material cannot get the status of fruitful contradiction and for this the Ld. Special PP referred the citations in AIR 1979 SC 1234 : 1979 Cr L J 1027 : 1980 Supp. SCC 157, Narayan vs State, (2000)8 SCC 457 that - “Insignificant omissions in the statement of witnesses to the police are no ground for disbelieving them”. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in (2000) 1 SCC where it was held that “Minor discrepancy or variance in evidence and it was held that it does not make the prosecution’s case doubtful.” and argued that even still this court is not satisfied then this court at the time of appreciation of evidence can type *#06# to find out the existing IMEI no. of the mobile seized from the accused. There is a typing error in the label regarding IMEI no. of the mobile of the accused which was seized on 21/7/17 through exhibit 36/1. The said label was prepared for sending the same to CFSL by PW. 18. This court finds that it is purely a bonafide typographical mistake and a minor discrepancies which in no way affecting the material evidences as the mentioning of IMEI no. in the seizure list dated 21/7/2017 was duly been proved by the P.W. 14 and P.W. 17 and CFSL report has given one of the IMEI no. being 358960061307271 and so just a typing error in the label is just discarded. In this present case this court finds that question had been put by the defense in the cross examination of P.W. 18 about the delay in filing of the seizure list. In this context Ld. Special PP referred a citation Sukhdeb vs State (2001)8 SCC 86 where it had been held that “Non-production of the seizure list in court as a part of the record is undoubtedly a lapse of the prosecution. But in the event of there being credible evidence on record, a lapse pertaining to nonproduction of seizure list would not really affect the case of prosecution in any way. The question always is whether any prejudice