IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26246 of 2009 MOHAR LAL @ MOHAR LAL RISHIDEO Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 26.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Stolen T.V. and its articles is said recovered on confession made by two co-accused persons, while submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that seizure list does not bears his signature. So, that cannot be read in conformity with the recovery. How strange it is that accused refuses to sign and take plea of his innocence having no signature in the seizure list. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)