In the light of the oral testimony of PW1 in that regard the delay as aforesaid is undoubtedly fatal to the prosecution. True that, under normal circumstances, if the evidence was appreciated by the court below and if the findings of the court below are nothing but a plausible view based on evidence this Court will not interfere with said findings. At the same time, in this case, it is evident that the aforementioned crucial aspects were not at all considered by the trial court. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that it is unsafe to enter conviction on the appellants based on the aforementioned evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case, in view of the lapses mentioned hereinbefore. As noticed hereinbefore, in this case, the crime was investigated by an incompetent officer and there is considerable delay in the matter of reporting the factum of seizure and also production of contraband articles before the court. Evidence of PW1 also would not be sufficient to presume that the contraband articles were kept in safe
