(1.) THE State is in appeal questioning the judgment and order dated 07.02.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, whereby the respondent was acquitted vide order below Exh. 23 in Criminal Case No. 692 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and this Court was inclined to remand the matter. The matter was fully argued on 08.05.2013 and learned Counsel for the respondent requested for time for seeking instruction from his client, as to whether he would be able to make a statement on his behalf that the matter may be remanded to the Court below. This Court adjourned the matter to 09.05.2013.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent states that he could not contact his client and is unable to make the statement as above.
(3.) LEARNED APP would submit that the Court below has failed to appreciate the judgment cited Chamanbhai Gangrama Vankar Vs. State ( : 1984 GLH 438) and the provision of Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 (for short Rules). He submitted that learned trial Judge was required to consider the evidence adduced before him as a whole. However, the respondents case came to be accepted only on the ground of non -compliance of Rule 4 of the Rules.