STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHATT ASHIT HARIHARKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP for the appellant. None is present for the respondent, though served.

(2.) The appellant- State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order of acquittal dated 7/5/2004 passed by learned JMFC,Gandhinagar in Criminal Case No. 633 of 1995, acquitting the respondent / original accused of the charge of committing offence under section 85 (1) (3) and 66 (1) B of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution before the Court was that the accused was caught on 5/12/1994 at 23.00 hours in an inebriated condition and he did not possess the permit for consuming alcohol. As he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, he was proceeded against for committing offence under section 85 (1) (3) and 66 (1) B of the Bombay Prohibition Act ( 'Prohibition Act' for short). The court after recording evidence and appreciating the same came to the conclusion that there was serious lapses noticed on the part of the doctor who collected blood and sent it for examination. After recording lack of evidence with regard to lack of complete compliance with provision of Rule 4 (1) of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination And Blood Test) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Prohibition Rules' for brevity), the court came to the conclusion that the accused deserved to be given benefit of doubt, and accordingly accused was acquitted of the charge of committing offence punishable under section 85 (1) (3) and 66 (1) B of the Prohibition Act vide order dated 7/5/2004, which is impugned in this appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned APP Ms. Shah has taken this Court through the order impugned as well as the original record that includes police report, the charge, testimony of the prosecution witnesses and accused statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. She submitted that though panchas did not support entirely the case of the prosecution, doctor's evidence could not have been treated to be an evidence lacking veracity for establishing compliance with procedure for taking blood from the accused. However she could not controvert from the record the glaring discrepancies recorded in the testimony of the doctor, P.W. no.1.