Rule 4 of Bombay Prohibition Medical Rules is Directory; Non-Compliance Does Not Mandate Acquittal

The applicant, an employee at an ST Workshop, was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol while on duty on May 2, 2004.

Upon being checked by the Superintendent, he was found inebriated and subsequently handed over to the police.

Following an investigation and a blood test revealing 0.05% alcohol content, the applicant was charged under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

The Trial Court (JMFC, Nadiad) convicted him under Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, while acquitting him under Section 85(1)(3) as the incident occurred within "limited premises".

The Sessions Court upheld this conviction in 2011.

The applicant filed this revision application challenging the concurrent findings on grounds of non-compliance with blood-testing procedures.

1. Whether there was a mandatory breach of Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, regarding the collection and sealing of blood samples.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act.

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The court applied Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act regarding the consumption of intoxicants and Section 85 regarding being found drunk in a public place.

It relied on Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, interpreting its nature based on Avadh Bihari Amrutlal v. State of Gujarat (2000), which established that these rules are directory, not mandatory.

The court also applied Section 104(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which specifically bars the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to convictions under the Prohibition Act.

Finally, the scope of revisional jurisdiction was defined per Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012), limiting interference to cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the medical evidence (PW-7) sufficiently demonstrated that the blood sample was collected, treated with anticoagulants, and sealed in accordance with procedure.

The court rejected the applicant's argument regarding Rule 4 by noting that the rule is directory and that sufficient compliance was established through documentary evidence at Exhibits 23 to 27.

Despite panch witnesses turning hostile, the court held that the FSL report (showing 0.05% alcohol) and oral testimony of the complainant were sufficient to sustain a conviction.

The court further reasoned that since the applicant was found in a restricted workshop area, the acquittal under Section 85(1)(3) was proper, but the offense under Section 66(1)(b) remained proved beyond doubt as the applicant lacked a permit.

The request for probation was denied pursuant to the statutory bar under Section 104(A) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The High Court dismissed the revision application and discharged the rule, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts, and ordered the applicant to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.