affixed on the mahazar, sample bottle, bottle containing the remaining part of the contraband and the forwarding note. In the present case, the forwarding note by which the sample of the contraband was sent for chemical analysis is also not produced and marked. In Natarajan v. State of Kerala, 2020 (3) KLT OnLine 1030 , it is held that when the specimen seal is not affixed on the seizure mahazar and in the forwarding note (in the present case no forwarding note is marked), there is no assurance that the very same sample which was allegedly drawn at the spot of occurrence was produced before the court and sent for analysis as per the forwarding note and it has reached the laboratory in a tamper proof condition and tested there. A similar view was taken by this Court in Gopalan v. State of Kerala , 2016 (3) KLT SN 24, Prakasan v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KLT SN 89 (C.No.96) and in Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala, 2021 (1) KLT 744. The Apex Court in Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 2019 SC 3569 has held that mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was the contraband substance cannot be conclusive proof by itself and that the sample seized and one tested are to be correlated. In view of the lacuna pointed out above, it is to be held that the prosecution could not establish the link evidence connecting the accused with the contraband seized and the sample analysed in the laboratory and in the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
