43 not examined, who could have thrown light on these issues. The record also does not show whether those glasses by themselves were made available for appropriate analysis. There is, thus, no clarity in the process adopted by the investigating machinery. 31. In Prakash vs. State of Karnataka20, the evidence concerning fingerprints was examined in the light of the procedure prescribed under the relevant manual and it was observed:“33. Our attention was drawn to the Karnataka Police Manual and it appears that Nanaiah followed the guidelines laid down therein and perhaps acted in an overly cautious manner. Guideline 1543 provides as follows: “1543. The opinion of the fingerprint expert is of paramount importance in the investigation of various crimes. The following instructions should be followed regarding chance finger and footprints and their developments, preservation of the scene, method of packing and other matters:” 34. Guideline 1544 in the Manual contains various provisions and clause (iv) and clause (v) are relevant for our purposes. They read as follows: “1544. (i)-(iii) * * * (iv) If latent prints are found on portable articles they should be seized under a detailed panchnama duly packed and labelled and sent to the Fingerprint Bureau with a police officer with instructions regarding the care of the package during the journey. (v) In sending the articles containing latent prints to the Bureau, proper attention must be 20 (2014) 12 SCC 133