such circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution was under an obligation to explain the delay occurred in such matters and the failure to afford a satisfactory explanation therefor is fatal to the prosecution. It is also contended that though it is stated in Ext.P8 forwarding note that the sample drawn from MO1 can was forwarded for chemical analysis it was not actually produced along with Ext.P8. Ext.P7 property list would reveal that it was prepared on 12.6.1999 and it reached the Court only on 19.6.1999. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ravi. State of Kerala [2011(3) KHC 121], the failure to report the factum of seizure forthwith and the failure to produce the seized articles including the residue with its container without unnecessary delay are fatal to the prosecution and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an acquittal. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that after seizure of the contraband article, the bottle containing the sample and the residue with the can were
