Substantial compliance in blood sample testing sustained admissibility of the chemical report and the statutory presumption.

Strict compliance with Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 was not required in every minor detail; substantial compliance with the safeguards for collecting, sealing, and forwarding the blood sample was sufficient. The Court accepted the medical officer's evidence, the chemical examiner's report, and the forwarding process as showing no realistic risk of tampering, so the report remained admissible and the statutory presumption under Section 66(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 could be drawn. Revisional interference was also limited because the conviction rested on concurrent findings of fact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the blood sample collection procedure under Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 was mandatory in every detail so as to render the chemical examiner's report inadmissible and prevent the statutory presumption under Section 66(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 from being drawn.

Analysis: The revision challenged the concurrent conviction for intoxication on the ground that the medical officer had not strictly complied with every requirement of Rule 4 while collecting and sealing the blood sample. The Court examined the evidence of the medical officer, the forwarding letter, and the chemical examiner's report, and applied the principle that revisional interference is limited where there are concurrent findings of fact. It held that the essential safeguards in Rule 4 were satisfied, that every minor step in the rule was not of mandatory character, and that the medical evidence and sealing procedure substantially complied with the rule. The Court further accepted that the seal and forwarding process negated any realistic possibility of tampering, and that the blood sample had reached the testing officer within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: Rule 4 was held to be substantially complied with, the chemical examiner's report remained admissible, and the presumption under Section 66(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 could validly be raised; the conviction was upheld and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute-prescribed blood testing procedure is complied with in substance and the safeguards against tampering are maintained, every procedural detail is not mandatory and the scientific report remains admissible for drawing the statutory presumption.

---