sufficiently proved the recovery of the item, which, on chemical examination by the FSL, was found to be „charas‟. The movement of the alleged contraband from the time of its seizure till it reached FSL for chemical examination leaves enough scope for its tempering and re-placement. As is the case of the prosecution, the samples were prepared on spot on 24.09.2006 itself and the same were taken to the Magistrate for re-sealing on 26.09.2006. It took two days for the prosecution to produce the sealed samples for re-sealing before the Magistrate, which puts the safe custody of the contraband in jeopardy. It is the categoric statement of the Executive Magistrate that one of the samples, after re-sealing, was sent to the FSL through Constable Ghulam Hussain on the same day i.e. 26.09.2006, whereas PW Surjeet Singh claims that he collected the sample from Dy. S. P. DAR, Ramban on 27.09.2006 and delivered the same to the FSL on 29.09.2006, without explaining as to where he had kept the sample for two days. That apart, the seal impression i.e. ring with which the three different samples „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟ were sealed on spot and was kept on the superdnama of Gurdev Singh, was never sent to the Executive Magistrate nor to the FSL. Interestingly, Gurdev Singh has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution nor the seal impression i.e. ring has been produced before the trial Court. In these circumstances, the link evidence is rendered incomplete and puts the whole case of the prosecution in the realm of doubt. Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh, 2005 SCC (Cri) 641 , in somewhat similar circumstances held thus:-
