guarantee that the original sample was also sealed and if that be so, the mere fact that even assuming it to be true that contraband article has been seized, does not help the prosecution. For the above proposition, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Krishnan v. State (2015 (2) KLT SN 8), Rajamma v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 506) and Ravi v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 353). As long as it is not established, the sample relies by the Chemical Analyst is a sample taken from the contraband article seized from the possession of the accused, the prosecution cannot succeed. It is significant to notice, according to the learned counsel, that in the mahazar prepared by PW5, he does not make mention of the nature of the seal used by him. Had he mentioned the nature of the seal therein, there would have been some substance in the prosecution case. In the absence of any evidence except for the statement given by PW5 at the time of evidence, there is no material to show the nature of the seal
