https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182874 A relevant scientific report admitted in evidence without objection to its admissibility or mode of proof could not be challenged for want of formal proof at the appellate stage. The distinction between relevance and proof was applied, and the objection was treated as unavailable for the first time in appeal. On the recovery issue, material inconsistencies about the date and manner of seizure, officer participation, deposit of seized articles, and handling of the sample and forwarding form created serious doubt about the prosecution version. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2016 16:20:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182874 A relevant scientific report admitted in evidence without objection to its admissibility or mode of proof could not be challenged for want of formal proof at the appellate stage. The distinction between relevance and proof was applied, and the objection was treated as unavailable for the first time in appeal. On the recovery issue, material inconsistencies about the date and manner of seizure, officer participation, deposit of seized articles, and handling of the sample and forwarding form created serious doubt about the prosecution version. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182874