Ext.P7 itself would show that the sample produced on 17.6.2000 was sent for analysis only under reference letter dated 4.9.2000 and it reached the chemical examiner on 5.9.2000. Evidently, after analysis, Ext.P7 report was prepared on 13.11.2001. Thus, it is obvious that there occurred a long delay of one year two months and 7 days in preparing Ext.P7 report despite the receipt of the sample along with the reference letter dated 4.9.2000 on 5.9.2000. Evidently, in this case, the chemical analyst was not examined and it was not necessary under normal circumstances, in terms of section 93, Cr.P.C. However, the position is bound to be different in view of the fact that there occurred a long delay in the matter of examination of the sample sent for analysis despite its receipt on 5.9.2000, as is evident from a conjoint reading of Exts.P5 and P7. In the absence of proper and satisfactory explanation, such a long delay is fatal to the prosecution and the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Suren dr an' s case (supra) to drive home the said point. In Surendran 's case, the sample was received by the chemical examiner
