The statutes that provide penalties for drug-related offenses do so only with [2] respect to contraband drugs defined as such by law. Burk v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 407, 275 N.E.2d 1. Thus, it has been stated by our courts (and those of other states) that the prosecution must prove, as an essential element, that the substance involved is indeed a proscribed drug within the applicable statutory definition. Slettvet v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 312, 280 N.E.2d 806; State v. Starks (1967), Mo., 419 S.W.2d 82; Casey v. State (1973), Alaska, 509 P.2d 285; People v. Williams (1972), 9 Ill. App. 466, 292 N.E.2d 204; Edelin v. United States (1967), D.C. Ct. App., 227 A.2d 395; Zide v. State (1968), Fla. App., 212 So.2d 788; Cert. den'd, 394 U.S. 911; See also,People v. Donnelly (1916), 173 App. Div. 713, 159 N.Y.S. 690; People v. Smith (1971), 36 A.D.2d 746, 320 N.Y.S.2d 486.

In Resketo, however, the reviewing court pointed out that there was no evidence to prove to whom the questioned substance had been delivered, its condition when delivered, the laboratory to which it had been delivered or that it ever reached the laboratory, and that there was some confusion and a discrepancy as to the case number of the alleged laboratory report and court filing number, thus indicating the possibility of a mistake. On the other hand, in People v. Williams, 9 Ill. App.3d 466, 292 N.E.2d 204 (abstract opinion), the chain of evidence was held sufficiently proven when the arresting officer testified he took the contraband to the crime lab, the item was inventoried with the Chicago Police Department for analysis, and he received a "return dated 4 October 1971, case number 71-12700-6, wherein the crime lab chemist found that the five tinfoil packets contained 1.3 grams, three of which were tested and found to be heroin." Significantly, the defendant there was held to have waived any question concerning the admissibility of the lab report by failure to object to it.