the evidence of PW4 in his examination-in-chief that he was not definite as to when the contraband and the samples were produced before the Court, the evidence of PW4 that the samples were in his safe custody till its production before the court, cannot be correct. No explanation was also given by PW4 for the delay from 21.5.1998 to 26.5.1998 in producing the samples before the Court. The delay as such, is not always fatal to the prosecution case. However, unexplained delay, is no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, there was unexplained delay from 21.5.1998 to 26.5.1998 in producing the samples before the court. Therefore, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, particularly when there is no convincing evidence with regard to the safe custody of the samples till their production before the court. In the said circumstances, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the samples analysed in the laboratory. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the
