Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner appears in this case on the basis of disclosure, after identifying from the CCTV footage installed in the bank premises. It is submitted that the recovered amount of Rs. 4000/- from the possession of petitioner is without any details and denominations and in want of the same it cannot be connected with looted money or to be said the part of the looted money. It is further submitted that identification of petitioner is not as per settled procedure adopted for TIP and moreover, charge sheet has been submitted in this case without obtaining mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly, when entire implication is based upon the electronic evidence. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that subsequent to this case, petitioner also found involved in three more cases, which was registered against unknown persons.