1. This appeal is clearly concluded by a recent decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed (1978) 2 SCC 386. The point involved in this case is as to whether the amount of blood sent to the Public Analyst was below the minimum prescribed by the Rules. It is true that under Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, it is required that the quantity of blood to be collected shall not be less than 5 c.c But the definite report of the Public Analyst in this case is that for his purpose 5 c.c was enough to determine the question whether the accused had consumed liquor. We are clearly of the opinion that the provisions of Rule 4 are merely directory and not mandatory and if the Public Analyst opined that the quantity below 5 c.c was sufficient for the purpose of analysing the results, then the Rule must be deemed to have been substantially complied with. This is the principle on which this Court in the aforementioned case held that even though the Rule required a particular amount of food to be sent to Public Analyst, yet unless there was evidence to show that the Public Analyst wanted more, even a lesser quantity than specified was a sufficient compliance of the Rules and would not vitiate the conviction. For these reasons, therefore, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from an appeal concerning compliance with Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which prescribes that the quantity of blood to be collected shall not be less than 5 c.c. The specific controversy was whether the amount of blood sent to the Public Analyst was below the minimum prescribed by the Rules in a case involving determination of whether the accused had consumed liquor. The Public Analyst’s definite report stated that 5 c.c was sufficient for his purpose to determine consumption. The court resolved the appeal by applying a recent decision of the same court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether non-collection or transmission of the prescribed minimum quantity of blood (5 c.c) under Rule 4 is a mandatory requirement whose breach vitiates the proceedings, or a directory requirement that can be satisfied by substantial compliance.
- Whether the Public Analyst’s opinion that a quantity at or below the prescribed minimum was sufficient for analysis constitutes substantial compliance with Rule 4.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed, (1978) 2 SCC 386 | When rules prescribe a particular quantity of sample to be sent to a Public Analyst, a lesser quantity may still amount to sufficient compliance unless there is evidence that the Public Analyst required more; such deficiency does not by itself vitiate a conviction. | The court treated Rule 4 as directory, holding that if the Public Analyst opined that a quantity below 5 c.c was sufficient for analysis, then the rule was substantially complied with. Accordingly, the appeal was concluded against the appellant. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court stated that the appeal was controlled by its recent decision in State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed. It identified the governing standard under Rule 4 of the 1959 Rules, which specifies that not less than 5 c.c of blood shall be collected. The court emphasized the Public Analyst’s definite report indicating that 5 c.c was sufficient to determine whether the accused had consumed liquor.
Applying the principle from Alaserry Mohammed, the court concluded that Rule 4 is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, if the Public Analyst opines that a quantity below 5 c.c is sufficient for the analytical purpose, the requirement is deemed to have been substantially complied with. On this basis, any shortfall in the quantity sent does not, by itself, vitiate the result of the analysis or the proceedings. Finding that the case fell squarely within this principle, the court found no merit in the appeal.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
Implications: The immediate effect is that the appeal fails, and the outcome below stands. The court reaffirmed that Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 is directory; a minor deviation in the quantity of blood sent does not invalidate the proceedings where the Public Analyst considers the quantity sufficient for analysis. The decision applies an existing precedent and sets no new rule beyond confirming substantial compliance suffices under similar circumstances.
Kisan v. State Of Maharashtra .
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Comments