JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years, pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. It was asserted that HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12), HC Samad (PW-9), and Constable Sandeep Rana were on patrolling duty at Salappar Bridge on 13.04.2023. An entry No.6 (Ext.P13/PW7) was recorded regarding their departure. A bus bearing registration No. CH01-GA-9975 came from Bilaspur toward Mandi at 1:00 a.m. The police stopped the bus for inspection. The driver of the bus revealed his name as Anil Kumar (PW-10), and the conductor identified himself as Jagsir Singh. The police checked the passengers of the bus in their presence. The accused occupied seat No. 9 and had a backpack with him. The police questioned the accused about the backpack, which frightened him. The police became suspicious and enquired about the name of the accused in the presence of the driver, conductor, and HC Samad (PW-9). The accused identified himself as Rinku Tamang. The police gave their personal search to the accused, and nothing incriminating was found in their possession. A memo (Ext.P15/PW9) was prepared. The police checked the backpack (Ext.MO2) and found one PAN Card (Ext.MO3), a T-shirt (Ext.MO4), and jeans (Ext. MO5) in the larger pocket of the backpack. A transparent polythene packet (Ext.MO6) tied with a knot was discovered in the pocket of the jeans. The police examined the polythene packet and found heroin inside. The police weighed the heroin and found its weight to be 14 (fourteen) grams. The polythene was tied in the same manner, in which it was recovered. A transparent polythene packet (Ext.MO6) tied with a knot was discovered in the pocket of the jeans. The police examined the polythene packet and found heroin inside. The police weighed the heroin and found its weight to be 14 (fourteen) grams. The polythene was tied in the same manner, in which it was recovered. The PAN Card, the T-shirt, and jeans were also placed in the backpack in the same manner as they were recovered. The backpack was placed in a cloth parcel (Ex.MO1), and the parcel was sealed with six seals of impression ‘04 BTR’. The NCB-1 form (Ext.P5/PW2) was filled in triplicate. The seal impression ‘04 BTR’ was applied to the form. A sample seal (Ext. P16/P-9) was placed on the cloth parcel, and the seal was handed over to Anil Kumar (PW- 10) after its use. The NCB-1 form, cloth parcel, sample seal, and bus ticket were seized vide memo (Ext.P17/PW9). Rukka (Ext.P47/PW12) was prepared and sent to the Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., where an F.I.R. (Ext.P3/PW-2) was registered. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) investigated the case. He arrived on the scene at 6:00 a.m. HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) handed over Rukka, the memo of search, the NCB-1 form, the seizure memo, the cloth parcel, the sample seal, the bus ticket, and the accused to SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) vide memo (Ext.P- 28/PW11). SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) prepared the spot map (Ext.P29/PW11). He recorded the statements of witnesses according to their version. He arrested the accused vide memo (Ext.P31/PW11). He produced the case file, the accused, and the case property before SHO Bharat Bhushan (PW-6), who resealed the parcel with three seals of seal impression CQ. Seal impression (Ext.P9/PW6) was placed on a separate piece of cloth. Columns 9 to 11 of the NCB-1 form (Ext.P5/PW2) were filled by SHO Bharat Bhushan (PW-6). Seal impression was also applied to the NCB-1 form. He handed over the cloth parcel, NCB-1 form, and sample seal to MHC Narotam Ram (PW-2), who made an entry in the Malkhana Register at Sl. No. 919 and deposited the case property in Malkhana. He handed over the case property to Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) for conducting the proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. He handed over the cloth parcel, NCB-1 form, and sample seal to MHC Narotam Ram (PW-2), who made an entry in the Malkhana Register at Sl. No. 919 and deposited the case property in Malkhana. He handed over the case property to Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) for conducting the proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) filed an application (Ext.P12/PW6) for certification of inventory (Ext.P11/PW6) before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sunderngar, District Mandi, H.P. The contraband was weighed, resulting in a total weight of 15.1 grams. It was placed back in the same parcel from which it was taken. The cloth parcel was sealed with nine seal impressions of seal ‘A’. A sample seal ‘A’ (Ext.P32/PW11) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. Photographs (Ext.P33/PW11 to Ext.P36/PW11) of the proceedings were taken. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., issued a certificate (Ext.P37/PW11) and passed an order (Ext.P38/PW11). The case property was deposited with HC Narotam Ram (PW-2) on the same day along with the documents. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) prepared a Special Report (Ext.P1/PW1) and handed it over to SDPO Dinesh Kumar (PW-5), who made the endorsement on the Special Report and forwarded it to his Reader HC Hari Prakash (PW-1). HC Hari Prakash (PW-1) made an entry in the Special Report Register (Ext.P2/PW1) and retained the Special Report on record. HC Narotam Ram (PW-2) handed over the case property to HHC Kesar Singh (PW-4) on 17.04.2023 vide RC No. 97/2023 (Ext.P7/PW2) with the direction to carry it to SFSL, Junga. HHC Kesar Singh deposited all the articles at SFSL, Junga, and handed over the receipt to HC Narotam Ram (PW-2) upon his return. The analysis result (Ext.P14/PW8) was issued, indicating that the exhibit identified as heroin was a sample of diacetylmorphine. The statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded according to their version, and after the investigation was completed, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. HC Hari Parkash (PW-1) was posted as a Reader to the SDPO to whom the Special Report was handed over. 4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. HC Hari Parkash (PW-1) was posted as a Reader to the SDPO to whom the Special Report was handed over. HC Narotam Ram (PW-2) was working as an MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HASI Ashwani Kumar (PW-3) brought the case property and the result of analysis from SFSL Junga. HHC Kesar Singh (PW-4) carried the case property to SFSL Junga for analysis. Dinesh Kumar (PW-5) was working as SDPO to whom the Special Report was handed over. Bharat Bhushan (PW-6) was working as SHO, who resealed the case property and signed the F.I.R. HHC Vijay Chand (PW-7), Constable Hem Raj (PW-13), LHC Teja (PW-14), and Constable Pitamber (PW-15) proved the entries in the daily diary. MHC Vinay Chand (PW-8) was working as MHC to whom the result of the analysis and the case property were handed over. HC Samad (PW-9) is the official witness, and Anil Kumar (PW-10) is an independent witness to the recovery. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) investigated the case. HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) effected the recovery. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He stated that he was not travelling in the vehicle. The police obtained his signatures by torturing him. The police had compelled him to get his photographs taken. He claimed that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated. No defence was sought to be adduced by the accused. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other and there were no major contradictions in them. No suggestion was given to the witnesses that the sample sent to the laboratory had been tampered with, and the integrity of the case property could not be doubted. Anil Kumar (PW-10) also supported the prosecution's version. The link evidence was duly proved, therefore, the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the sentencing the accused. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's version. The seizure memo was not proven. The signatures of the witnesses were obtained at the Police Station. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's version. The seizure memo was not proven. The signatures of the witnesses were obtained at the Police Station. Police officials admitted that a nail-cutter and a gas lighter were not recovered at the time of recovery, but they were found in the laboratory. This made the integrity of the case property doubtful. It was not proved that the accused was travelling in the bus. The total weight of the heroin was found to be 15.1 grams during the proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, whereas it was found to be 14 grams on the spot. The increase in the case property made the prosecution’s case suspect. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be quashed. 8. I have heard M/s Kamal Kant and Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 9. Mr. Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that there are various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Trial Court erred in relying upon these testimonies to convict and sentence the accused. The integrity of the case property was not established. Nail-cutter and a gas lighter were found in the laboratory, for which no explanation has been provided. The learned Trial Court did not consider these aspects. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. Lokender Kutlehira, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are minor, which were bound to come with time. Nail-cutter and a gas lighter could have been inadvertently put inside the bag during the inventory proceedings; nothing much can be made out of the same. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. Anil Kumar (PW-10) stated that police checked the luggage of the passengers. They called him and told him that they wanted to check the bag of a boy who was sitting on the bus. Conductor Jagsir Singh was also present on the bus. 12. Anil Kumar (PW-10) stated that police checked the luggage of the passengers. They called him and told him that they wanted to check the bag of a boy who was sitting on the bus. Conductor Jagsir Singh was also present on the bus. The police gave their search to the accused, and nothing incriminating was found in their possession. The police searched the bag and found one PAN Card, a T-shirt and Jeans in one pocket, and one polythene packet, which was opened and was found to contain the narcotic substance. It was weighed and its weight was found to be 14 grams. All the articles were put in the same manner in which they were recovered. The backpack was put in a cloth parcel, and the parcel was sealed. The seal was handed over to Jagsir Singh after its use. He identified his signatures on various documents. He stated in his cross- examination that his statement was typed in his presence. The police had not seized the Registration Certificate, documents and route permit of the bus from him. The Police were in uniform. He corrected to say that he was not sure whether the police officials were in uniform or not. However, they disclosed their identity to him. The police called him inside the bus after five minutes. He denied that police said a bag was recovered from the accused. The accused had not taken his personal search but perhaps he had taken the personal search of the police officials. The police were doing the routine checking of the luggage. He was outside the bus, but was looking inside the bus from the window glass. The police asked the passengers to be witnesses, but they declined. The police had not personally searched the accused. The recovered substance was checked with a kit which looked like a laboratory kit. The bus remained on the spot from 1:00 AM till 7:00-8:00 a.m.The passengers were sent in different buses. The first document was written at 2:00 a.m. The police officials boarded the vehicle from the front and the rear. One police official left the spot at 3:00-4:00 a.m. He signed the documents after going through them. He did not know the name of the police official who had written the words on the parcel. He denied that he was deposing falsely, and no recovery was effected from the accused. 13. One police official left the spot at 3:00-4:00 a.m. He signed the documents after going through them. He did not know the name of the police official who had written the words on the parcel. He denied that he was deposing falsely, and no recovery was effected from the accused. 13. It is apparent from the examination of this witness that he has supported the prosecution's case in material particulars. He categorically deposed about the search of the backpack, and the recovery of the various articles including the polythene packing containing heroin. Therefore, the submission that the prosecution's case became doubtful because Anil Kumar (PW-10) has not supported it is not acceptable. 14. HC Samad (PW-9) and HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) also supported the prosecution's case. 15. It was submitted that the Drug Detection Kit was not mentioned in the entry (Ext.P13/PW7), and it is highly doubtful that police had a Drug Detection Kit with them. This submission is not acceptable. HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) specifically stated in his cross-examination that the Drug Detection Kit was in the I.O. kit and was not issued in the name of any police official. The entry in the daily diary specifically mentions that the I.O. kit was with the police officials. Since the Drug Detection Kit was part of the I.O. kit, therefore, it was not separately required to be mentioned. Further, Anil Kumar (PW-10) specifically stated that the recovered substance was tested with some kit, which looked like a laboratory kit. Therefore, the availability of the Drug Detection Kit on the spot is duly established, and the prosecution's case cannot be doubted because the Drug Detection Kit was not mentioned in the daily diary entry. 16. HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) stated in his cross-examination that the particulars on the parcel were written by HC Samad (PW-9) on the spot, and he had only attested the parcel on the spot. HC Samad (PW-9) stated in his cross-examination that the contents of the parcel in portion B to B were written by the Investigating Officer on the spot. It was submitted that this is a major contradiction in the statements of the police officials. This submission is not acceptable because it is a minor contradiction regarding the detail. HC Samad (PW-9) stated in his cross-examination that the contents of the parcel in portion B to B were written by the Investigating Officer on the spot. It was submitted that this is a major contradiction in the statements of the police officials. This submission is not acceptable because it is a minor contradiction regarding the detail. Further, the contradiction is apparent and not real because portion B to B was not shown to the Investigating Officer to elicit his opinion whether these were written by him as stated by HC Samad or not. HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) deposed about writing the contents on the parcel, and it is also possible that besides the contents of the parcel, some portion was also written by the Investigating Officer. Unless the Investigating Officer is asked about the same, it cannot be said that the statement of HC Samad (PW-9) that the contents of the parcel in portion B to B were written by the Investigating Officer is incorrect. 17. It was submitted that HC Samad (PW-9) deposed that photographs were taken by him, whereas HC Sarang Sharma (PW12) stated that he had taken the photographs. This is another contradiction. This submission is not acceptable because this is a minor contradiction which is bound to come with time. Further, HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) stated that he had issued a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the photography conducted on the spot, which bears his signature in a red circle ‘A’. HC Samad (PW-9) stated that had had clicked the photographs with the mobile phone of HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12). The certificate (Ext.P48/PW12) mentions that photography was conducted by HC Samad (PW-9) with the mobile phone of HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12). The camera of the mobile phone was functioning properly, and no tampering was made with the photographs. The certificate clearly mentions that photographs were taken by HC Samad (PW-9), and the statement of HC Sarang Sharma cannot be read to mean that he had taken the photographs. He was deposing about the issuance of the certificate issued by him. Therefore, this submission will not help the accused. 18. Learned Trial Court rightly held that there were no major contradictions in the testimonies of police officials to make them doubtful and the testimonies of the police officials cannot be rejected simply because they happened to be police officials. He was deposing about the issuance of the certificate issued by him. Therefore, this submission will not help the accused. 18. Learned Trial Court rightly held that there were no major contradictions in the testimonies of police officials to make them doubtful and the testimonies of the police officials cannot be rejected simply because they happened to be police officials. The presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the regularity of the official acts applied to the acts of the police officials as well. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly relied upon the testimonies of police officials. 19 The case property was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., who passed an order (Ext.P38/PW11). It was mentioned in para-6 of the order that the parcel was opened and it had a backpack containing a PAN Card, a T-shirt, jeans, a lighter and a transparent polythene tied on the top. The weight of the contraband was found to be 15.1 grams as against 14 grams. All the articles were put in the backpack and the backpack was put in a parcel. 20. The parcel was sent to SFSL, and the result of the analysis (Ext.P14/PW8) was issued. It was mentioned in column No.10 that on opening the sealed cloth parcel, the exhibit stated as heroin, in the form of yellowish brown coloured irregular shape hygroscopic masses in transparent knotted poly packet in right pocket of blue coloured denim pants, was found in grey coloured synthetic zip bag alongwith the blue coloured T-shirt, PAN card of Rinku Tamang, yellow coloured lighter and nail-cutter. 21. Seizure memo (Ext.P17/PW9) does not mention lighter and nail-cutter but only mentions PAN card, T-shirt,jeans and polythene pouch containing heroin. No witness provided any explanation regarding the presence of a lighter and nail-cutter in the parcel. 22. HC Samad (PW-9), Anil Kumar (PW-10) and HC Sarang Sharma (PW-12) did not state about the recovery of the gas lighter and nail-cutter from the accused. Anil Kumar (PW-10) stated in his cross-examination that he did not remember whether any nail- cutter and lighter were found in the bag. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) stated in his cross-examination that he had not put any gas lighter or nail-cutter in the sealed parcel. Anil Kumar (PW-10) stated in his cross-examination that he did not remember whether any nail- cutter and lighter were found in the bag. SI Ramesh Kumar (PW-11) stated in his cross-examination that he had not put any gas lighter or nail-cutter in the sealed parcel. HC Narotam Ram (PW-2) stated that the Investigating Officer had not told him about the recovery of the gas lighter and nail cutter. Dy.SP Bharat Bhushan (PW-6) stated in his cross-examination that he had not put any gas-lighter and nail cutter in the parcel. He had not added anything to the contraband. Thus, the prosecution witnesses are silent as to how the gas lighter and nail-cutter were found in the parcel. 23. It has been stated in Analysis of Evidence ( Second edition, Terence Anderson, David Schum, and William Twining,Cambridge University Press) that before the reliance can be placed on the tangible evidence, the link evidence has to be led to establish that there was no tampering with the same. It has been stated on page 64: “There are three major sources of ancillary evidence that may call into question the authenticity of tangible evidence. The first involves evidence that has been deliberately contrived to mislead others, such as a forged document. Errors in recording, transmitting, or processing evidence are the second source. Tangible evidence may pass through many hands before it is offered at trial. The opportunities for processing or handling errors of various kinds increase with the number of hands a tangible item passes through. Blood samples may be mislabeled or even substituted for one another. That is the reason for the requirement that there should be evidence establishing the chain of custody from the time the evidence was discovered (the bloody glove) or generated (an entry into a business record) until the time the evidence is presented at trial. If we do not know all of the links in a chain of custody, we cannot vouch for the authenticity of a tangible item. Finally, the witness whose testimony is offered to establish the authenticity of an item may be mistaken or untruthful.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sansar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023:HHC:10188-DB , that the prosecution has to prove the integrity of the case property.It was observed as under: 15. Finally, the witness whose testimony is offered to establish the authenticity of an item may be mistaken or untruthful.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sansar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2023:HHC:10188-DB , that the prosecution has to prove the integrity of the case property.It was observed as under: 15. In State of Rajasthan vs. Daulat Ram, AIR 1980 (SC) 1314 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a sample changed several hands, the entire chain needs to be established with utmost clarity. 16. In Valsala vs. State of Kerala, 1993 Supp. 3 SCC 665, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the prosecution was required to establish that during the entire period, when samples were lying with the prosecution, it were lying with whom and whether it were in safe custody. The Officer in-Charge was required to be examined. The safe custody of samples for the entire duration was required to be established. 17. In State of Gujarat vs. Ismail U Haji Patel, 2003 (12) SCC 291 emphasized that in a prosecution relating to the NDPS Act, the question as to how and where the samples had been stored or as to when they had been dispatched or received in the laboratory is a matter of great importance and a noncompliance thereof could also result in the trial being vitiated. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in paras 5 and 6 of the judgment, which read as under:- “5. We find that there was really no material brought on record to show as to where the seized articles were kept. The High Court, after analysing the evidence on record, came to hold that the identity of the articles sent for analysis was not established, and it was not established that the articles seized were in fact sent for chemical examination. In view of the judgment of this Court in Valsala v. State of Kerala, the view of the High Court is in order. It is not the delay in sending the samples which is material. What has to be established is that the seized articles were in proper custody, in proper and the samples sent to the Chemical Analyst related to the seized articles form. 6. It is not the delay in sending the samples which is material. What has to be established is that the seized articles were in proper custody, in proper and the samples sent to the Chemical Analyst related to the seized articles form. 6. Further, there was nothing brought on record to show as to under whose direction the samples were sent for chemical examination. The High Court relied on Section 55 of the Act to hold that the absence of such information also vitiates the proceedings. Section 55 of the Act provides that the officer in charge of the police station has to take charge of and keep in safe custody the seized articles pending orders of the Magistrate. Since there is no material to show that there was any order of the Magistrate as to where the seized articles were to be kept, and there was no material to show that there was safe custody as is required under Section 55 of the Act, the view of the High Court is in order. Judgment of the High Court does not warrant any interference in our hands and the appeal is dismissed”. 18 In State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh, 2005 (3) SCC 59 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court found the link evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to be unsatisfactory and, on the basis of such evidence, was pleased to uphold the acquittal. 19 The issue of safe custody of contraband goods assumes significant and seminal importance has been appropriately dealt with in State of Rajasthan vs. Tara Singh, 2011 (11) SCC 559 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court succinctly observed as under:- “6. We must emphasize that in a prosecution to the Act, the question as to how and where the samples had been stored or as to when they had despatched or received in the laboratory is a matter of great importance on account of the huge penalty involved in these matters. The High Court was, therefore, in our view, fully justified in holding that the sanctity of the samples had been compromised which cast a doubt on the prosecution's story. We, accordingly, feel that the judgment of the High Court on the second aspect calls for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondent is on bail. The High Court was, therefore, in our view, fully justified in holding that the sanctity of the samples had been compromised which cast a doubt on the prosecution's story. We, accordingly, feel that the judgment of the High Court on the second aspect calls for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.” 20 In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Hansraj alias Hansu (2018) 18 SCC 355 , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is delay in producing the samples of the contraband substance in the court and when the evidence is that the same were kept in the police station, the prosecution has to adduce evidence to show that as to how and in what condition, samples were preserved at the police station. 21 In Vijay Pandey vs. State of U.P., 2019 (SC) 3569, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested from contraband substance cannot be conclusive proof by itself and that the sample seized and the one tested have to be correlated. It shall be apt to reproduce relevant observations as contained in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment, which read as under:- “8. The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case no different from a failure to produce the seized sample itself. In the circumstances, the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The samples seized and those tested have to be correlated. The observations in Vijay Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 527 , as follows, are considered relevant: “10. In the circumstances, the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The samples seized and those tested have to be correlated. The observations in Vijay Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 527 , as follows, are considered relevant: “10. On the other hand, on a reading of this Court's judgment in Jitendra's case, we find that this Court has taken a view that in the trial for an offence under the NDPS Act, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of the contraband goods were seized from the possession of the accused and the best evidence to prove this fact is to produce during the trial, the seized materials as material objects and where the contraband materials alleged to have been seized are not produced and there is no explanation for the failure to produce the contraband materials by the prosecution, mere oral evidence that the materials were seized from the accused would not be sufficient to make out an offence under the NDPS Act particularly when the panch witnesses have turned hostile. Again, in the case of Ashok (supra), this Court found that the alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession of the accused was not produced before the trial court as material exhibit and there was no explanation for its nonproduction and this Court held that there was therefore no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant.” 9. In Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 5 SCC 123 , it was observed: “12. Last but not least, the alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession of the accused, including the appellant, was never produced before the trial court as a material exhibit, and once again, there is no explanation for its nonproduction. There is, thus, no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant or the other accused.” 25. Thus, it is essential to prove the integrity of the case property before the reliance can be placed upon the prosecution's case. There is, thus, no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant or the other accused.” 25. Thus, it is essential to prove the integrity of the case property before the reliance can be placed upon the prosecution's case. In the present case, the integrity of the case property has become suspect because of the presence of a gas lighter and a nail cutter in the parcel in the laboratory. Therefore, it is not possible to rely upon the report of analysis that the parcel contained heroin. 26. Learned Trial Court held that the defence version regarding the tampering with the case property could not be relied upon because no such suggestion was given to the witnesses regarding the tampering. Reliance was placed upon State of H.P. Vs. Pardeep Kumar, etc. S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos 7105-7106 of 2015, decided on 16.02.2018:2018 INSC 16. This was a misreading of the judgment because the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found that the sample analysed by the Chemical Analyst was not tampered but only the case property was torn due to be bulky condition and nails in the stool on which it was kept. 27. In the present case, the nail-cutter and lighter were found by the Chemical Analyst himself, for which no explanation was provided. This by itself is sufficient to show that the integrity of the case property was doubtful and did not require any suggestion. Hence, the prosecution's case was liable to be rejected due to the presence of these articles and no suggestions were required to be given in the present case. 28. Therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not sustainable. Hence, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are ordered to be set aside and the accused is acquitted of the commission of the charged offence. The accused be released, forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. The accused be released, forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the appellant/accused is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within a period of four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellant/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned with a copy of this judgment for the information of the learned Trial Court. 31. Appeal stands disposed of along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.