1. Two grounds are urged before me by the learned counsel Smt. Rashmi canvassing the correctness, legality and propriety of the concurrent findings on facts recorded by the courts below (the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Quilandy in C.C. 956/96 and the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl.A. 455/99) to upset the order of conviction passed by the courts below. The foremost ground projected before me by the learned counsel is that the contraband seized (residue and sample) was seen produced in court only on 13.9.95 and the occurrence report was received by the court on the next day ie., on 14.9.95. Counsel argued that there is no evidence to show that residue and sample taken were kept in the safe custody by PW3 till those items were produced in court. Counsel contended that chance of tampering cannot be ruled out. The second limb of the contention is that in Ext. P4 chemical analyst's report it is not stated what were the tests conducted to ascertain whether the sample contained ethyl alcohol or not and the result of the Analyst alone is stated in that report.

2. The facts concurrently found on appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its cas