Chain of custody and intact seal are essential in narcotics proof, with failure defeating conviction

The text addresses proof of safe custody of a seized opium sample and whether the seal remained intact until the sample reached the forensic science laboratory. It notes that the evidence of the seizing officer and malkhana in-charge was examined, but the materials did not establish that the seal affixed at seizure remained intact throughout transit. The text treats an unbroken chain of custody and secure transmission as mandatory to prove that the seized substance was a prohibited drug, and states that failure on this point was fatal to sustaining the conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved safe custody of the seized opium sample and that the seal remained intact until the sample reached the forensic science laboratory.

Analysis: The evidence of the seizing officer and the malkhana in-charge was examined to ascertain whether the sample, after seizure and sealing, remained untampered with during transit to the forensic science laboratory. The Court found that it was not possible to hold on the evidence that the seal allegedly affixed at the time of seizure remained intact throughout. As intact sealing and safe transmission of the sample are mandatory to prove that the seized substance was in fact a prohibited drug, the prosecution's failure on this aspect was fatal.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the mandatory chain of custody and intact seal, so the conviction could not be sustained.

---