Safe custody of seized contraband outweighs minor sample forwarding delay, restoring conviction and sentence.

Mere delay of a few days in forwarding a seized sample does not, by itself, invalidate the prosecution where the record shows continuous safe custody of the contraband and sample in the Excise Malkhana and their production before the Court. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the prosecution case as unreliable despite material proving custody, and distinguished the earlier precedent because it involved unclear custody evidence and a much longer delay. The acquittal was not sustainable, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal was justified on the ground that there was a delay in sending the sample and insufficient proof of safe custody of the seized contraband.

Analysis: The seized articles and sample were shown in the forwarding report to have been produced before the Court with the accused, and the evidence established that they were kept in the Excise Malkhana before being sent for chemical examination. The delay of a few days, by itself, did not render the prosecution case unreliable. The earlier decision relied upon was distinguishable because it turned on absence of clear evidence as to custody and a much longer delay. The High Court failed to notice the material showing proper custody and erred in treating the prosecution case as untrustworthy.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not sustainable and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere delay in forwarding the sample does not vitiate the prosecution where the evidence establishes proper and safe custody of the seized contraband throughout the relevant period.

---