61 under sec. 27 is found inadmissible still it is relevant under section 8 as conduct of the accused” and AIR 1952 SC 167: 1952 Cr LJ 683: 1952 SCR 839: 1952 SCJ 230 where it was held that “Several accused stated that dead bodies could be recovered in nala. Nala stretching over several miles. Accused pointed out the exact place Discovery” are applicable in this case. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a another citation reported in AIR 1957 SC 211: 1957 Cr LJ 328 where it was held that “Statement of the accused that he would give the clothes of the deceased which he had kept in a brick-kiln and thereafter the accused dug out the clothes from the pit is admissible” and argued that fact discovered is not equivalent to object produced. It embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the fact and is applicable in this case and the highlighted portion in red ink and marked as exhibits 26/10 and 26/11. So, it appears before this court that as regards the seizure list dt. 22/7/17 (exhibit 25/6) P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 18 corroborated with each other. There are independent witnesses and there is nothing in the cross examinations that there was no seizure and all the witnesses identified their signatures. On perusal of exhibit 25/6 this court finds that the place of seizure was the same which P.W. 10 stated and P.W. 11 was already present there and the witnesses identified the seized articles as per the seizure list. This court further finds from exhibits 27/6 to 27/11 that P.W. 11 had issued a certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and there is nothing in the cross examination of P.W. 11 that he had not issued the said certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and that the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act was not proper. Moreover, P.W. 11 in his cross examination clearly stated that he had written “made computer output” which means the entire process was included in exhibits 27/6 to 27/11 P.W. 11 had written “the entire process of making computer output is done as stated by me” and in the word “making” the typing word is included and thus there is an admission that P.W. 11 had issued the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act properly. The seizure list was thus prepared and the articles were seized based on the informations as provided by the accused.