Chain of custody for seized contraband remained intact despite non-examination of an intermediary witness, with matching seals negating tampering.

Where seized contraband remained in proved official custody and the forensic report confirmed that the seals were intact and matched the specimen seal, the prosecution case was not undermined by the non-examination of an intermediary witness who handled the sample briefly. The Court treated the witness's limited role as insufficient, by itself, to create reasonable doubt or support an inference of tampering. On the record, the chain of custody was maintained and the suggestion of sample tampering was not proved or made probable, so the evidence remained trustworthy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-examination of the intermediary witness handling the samples and the alleged possibility of tampering with the seized opium samples vitiated the prosecution case despite the FSL report showing intact seals.

Analysis: The seized contraband was recovered, sealed, and deposited in malkhana, and the sample thereafter moved through official custody before reaching the forensic laboratory. The intermediary witness had only a limited role in receiving and returning the sample at the Superintendent of Police office, and his non-examination did not create a reasonable doubt by itself. The forensic report specifically recorded that the seals were intact and matched the specimen seal, which negatived any inference of tampering. In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence remained trustworthy and the High Court's concern about possible tampering was unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The non-examination of the intermediary witness was not fatal, and the prosecution case was not weakened by any proved or probable tampering of the sample.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized contraband remains in proved custody and the forensic report confirms intact and matching seals, non-examination of an intermediary link witness does not by itself destroy the prosecution case.

---