51 the time of seizure of exhibit 14/2, 15/2 and 16/2 he had signed into it along with date. From exhibit 13/3 this court finds that P.W. 18 had given an endorsement that he had seized this article in connection with this case and there is also an endorsement on the last page by Tapas Satapati who had given certificate that it is the original answer copy submitted by Animesh Boxi during 2nd Internal Examination on 17/5/17. In exhibit 14/2 there is also an endorsement given by P.W. 18 that he had seized in connection with this case and Tapas Satapati also certified that it is the original form submitted by Animesh Boxi to the Central Library. P.W. 5 identified the covering letter (exhibit 17/2) regarding the documents submitted dated 04/9/2017 and identified his signature into it and further stated that through this covering letter he was authorised by Tapas Satapathi and identified the signature of Tapas Satapati as both P.W. 5 and Tapas Satapati work at the same place. On perusal of exhibit 17/2 this court finds that this letter had been issued by Tapas Satapati and authorised P.W. 5 to submit it and it is also written that it relates to Panskura P.S. case no. 381/17 and the documents mentioned in exhibit 17/2 contained the hand writing and signature of Animesh Boxi. The seizure witnesses P.W. 11 and P.W. 16 also signed into it along with date (exhibit 17/3 and 17/4). P.W. 18 in his evidence stated that he put an endorsement into it and on perusal of the said endorsement this court finds that the endorsement is P.W. 18 seized it in connection with this case. Now on perusal of exhibit 12/6 this court finds that it is the seizure list dated 04/9/17 and seized from Bajendra Gupta who had produced the documents and all the seized articles are property mentioned in the seizure list and the seizure witnesses and P.W. 5 also signed into it and P.W. 18 who had prepared the seizure list also signed into it. From the oral evidences of P.W. 5, P.W. 11 and P.W. 16 there are no contradictions but they corroborated and there is nothing in the cross examinations of P.W. 5, P.W. 11 and P.W. 16. At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer for the accused pointed out that there is no “Seen” or sign of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate in exhibit 12/6. In this aspect this court is of the view that it is merely a process of court and during trial in exhibit 12/6 the seizure witnesses identified their signatures and P.W. 18 who had prepared this seizure list also identified it and hence exhibit 12/6 is proved by the witnesses. Mere a failure in procedure by the court which is not beyond the control of