(45) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) bill of meals and the beer was due towards accused Jawed, and towards the bill he had given that mobile to him. It appears from the evidence of both these witnesses that the IMEI number of stolen mobile and mobile seized from Pradip was the same. Therefore, API Shri Patare seized that mobile from accused Pradip under panchnama. It also seems from the evidence of API Shri Patare that, accused Pradip had inserted Sim­Card of Air­Tel Company in that mobile, having number 9503667292 and the evidence of the son of Pradeep by name Mayur Chandaliya, (Exh­113,PW­26) also corroborates this fact. It appears that then after, API Shri Patare, along with his report at Exh­78 handed over said mobile to P.I. Shri Borse who was investigating this crime. The battery number of that mobile was 438197. It tallied with the battery number mentioned in the receipt at Exh­39. API Shri Patare had also prepared seizure panchnama of said mobile at Exh­77 before two panchas No doubt both the panch witnesses by name Mukram Khan and Amir Khan did not support the prosecution on some material particulars. But both P.C. Bahule and API Shri Patare had no grievance against accused Pradip so as to depose false against him. Their evidence is totally trustworthy and reliable so far as the seizure of said