Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Dalsukhji Varvaji vs State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 1967

Shravan Ganpat Randhir vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 July, 1979

Construing the said rule along with Rule 5, the Gujarat High Court has in the case of Dalsukhji Varvaji v. State of Gujarat, supra held that the prosecution solely relying on the report of the Chemical Analyser for blood concentration will not be entitled to the benefit of the presumption under section 66(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and such a presumption cannot, in the circumstances, be drawn against the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Malahavarao Bhagwandas Kharade vs The State Of Gujarat on 8 February, 1971

3. One of the contentions raised for the petitioner in the appeal was that the mandatory provisions of Rule 4 (2) of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 particularly with reference to the sending of the blood sample so as to" reach the Chemical Analyser within seven days from the date of its collection had not been followed, and that it being a mandatory provision, the examination of the blood sample was vitiated and that the Chemical Analyser's certificate was not admissible in evidence, and could not be relied upon for the purposes of convicting the petitioner. The learned Extra. Additional Sessions Judge while considering the rulings in Karansing v. State of Gujarat, , Dalsukhji v. State of Gujarat, 1969 Cri LJ 695 (Guj), as also the ruling in Narayan Krishnaji v. State" of Maharashtra, was of the opinion that the period of seven days provided under Rule 4 (2) of the rules was prescribed rich a view to avoid- delay in forwarding the sample and that it would not affect the result of the test even if it was despatched later, and therefore, held, in substance, that this part of the rule is directory and, not mandatory in character. He was also of the opinion that the breach complained of in the present case was not such as was likely to affect the result of the test and hence the report of the Chemical Analyser and his evidence could not be disregarded even if it was held that the provisions of Rule 4 (2) of the rules are mandatory in character.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1