Jethalal Girdharlal vs State of Gujarat(1984)2GLR964
Introduction:
The present case involves a revision application filed by the petitioner, the original accused, against the order of conviction and sentence passed under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner challenges the compliance with Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, and contends that the conviction cannot be sustained due to the lack of substantial compliance.
Summary of Facts:
The petitioner, a police constable, visited a lodge where he consumed food, made random remarks, and demanded alcohol. Failing to obtain alcohol, the petitioner assaulted a servant at the lodge. The accused was subsequently apprehended, and a sample of his venous blood was collected and sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory for testing, which revealed the presence of alcohol. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 66(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine.
Procedural History:
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, which acquitted him of one offense but confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 66(1)(b). Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner filed a revision application challenging the compliance with Rule 4 of the Prohibition Act’s Rules.
Contentions:
The petitioner’s advocate argued that Rule 4, which outlines the procedure for blood collection, labeling, and sealing, should be considered mandatory. They contended that since the seal impression on the phial of blood was illegible, there was a lack of substantial compliance with the rule, rendering the conviction invalid.
In response, the Public Prosecutor argued that Rule 4 is directory and intended to safeguard the accused’s interests, emphasizing that the quantity of blood collected was sufficient for analysis. They referred to a Supreme Court judgment that deemed Rule 4 as directory, allowing for substantial compliance.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
The court examined Rule 4 and its requirements, noting that the phial containing the blood sample was labeled, sealed with a perfect seal, and matched the serial number specified in Form B. However, the seal impression was deemed illegible, creating a technical discrepancy. While acknowledging that Rule 4 is directory, the court emphasized the importance of a legible seal impression for proper identification.
The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment that held Rule 4 as directory but emphasized substantial compliance. It noted that the seal’s illegibility did not invalidate the identification of the phial due to other corroborative evidence. Therefore, the court found that substantial compliance was achieved, and the report from the Forensic Laboratory was admissible.
Regarding the issue of sentencing, the petitioner argued that the trial court and the Sessions Court failed to provide an opportunity to be heard on the point of sentence. The court observed that Section 66 of the Act allows for a minimum sentence but also provides for imposing a lesser sentence if there are special and adequate reasons. Therefore, the court held that the accused should have been given an opportunity to present such reasons, regardless of the procedure followed.
Conclusion:
In this case comment, it is evident that the court examined the compliance with Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and determined that although the seal impression on the phial was illegible, there was substantial compliance. The court emphasized the importance of a legible seal impression for proper identification but found that other evidence established the identity of the phial. Additionally, the court held that the accused should have been given an opportunity to present special and adequate reasons for a lesser sentence, as provided by Section 66 of the Act.
written by Abhinav bhardwaj intern under legal vidhiya.
