Non-compliance with mandatory blood collection procedures under Rule 4 invalidates chemical analysis report and presumption of guilt.

The applicant was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mendarda, for consuming an intoxicant under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, and sentenced to 10 days of simple imprisonment

This conviction was upheld by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2018

The applicant challenged these orders via a Revision Application, alleging that the medical evidence was flawed because the blood sample was not collected in accordance with mandatory statutory procedures

Specifically, during cross-examination, the Medical Officer admitted that a nurse drew the blood instead of the doctor and that the syringe used had not been sterilized in boiling water as required by law

The court applied Section 129A of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, which empowers officers to compel a medical examination and blood collection to detect intoxicants

It strictly interpreted Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which mandates that a registered medical practitioner must use a syringe sterilized in boiling water to withdraw blood

The court also relied on the precedent Madhavarao Bhagwandas Kharade v. State of Gujarat (1971) and Vrajlal Damodar v. State (1971), which established that while not every minute detail of Rule 4 is mandatory, the precautions to prevent extraneous alcohol contamination—such as sterilization and the handling of the sample—are mandatory requirements

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the mandatory aspects of Rule 4. The Medical Officer’s admission that he did not personally withdraw the blood and that the syringe was not sterilized in boiling water constituted a "serious infirmity" in the evidence-gathering process

The court reasoned that these specific procedural safeguards are intended to ensure the integrity of the sample; if they are bypassed, the risk of contamination or tampering renders the Chemical Analyser’s findings unreliable

Because the report was stripped of its evidentiary value, the statutory presumption of guilt under the Act could not be invoked

Furthermore, the court noted that other clinical observations, such as the lack of slurred speech or unsteady gait, contradicted the allegation of intoxication

The court allowed the Revision Application, quashing and setting aside the judgments of both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The applicant was acquitted of the charges under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act