AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R. Udhwani, J.—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.
Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he could not contact his client and is unable to make the statement as above.
Both learned Counsel for the respective parties jointly submitted that the Court may not discuss the matter on merits since the Court was
inclined to remand the matter.
Learned APP would submit that the Court below has failed to appreciate the judgment cited Chamanbhai Gangaram Vankar Vs. The State of
Gujarat, 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.
This Court is of the opinion that whole material placed before the trial Court was required to be considered. Chamanbhai Gangrama Vankar
(supra) was not correctly appreciated. The trial Court ought to have discussed the implications on the facts of the case in view of the fact that Rule
4 was not mandatory.
In that view of the matter, without observing anything on merits, this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the Trial Court for decision on
merits. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and order is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for its
decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly.