https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194392 A chemical examination report of blood collected outside the procedure under section 129A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was held admissible for invoking the presumption under section 66(2), because section 129A was not treated as the exclusive mode of proof and relevant reports remained admissible under the general law of evidence. The Court also held that retrial is an exceptional remedy and should not be ordered merely to cure evidentiary deficiencies; where further evidence is needed, the appellate court should ordinarily permit additional evidence and then decide the appeal. A dissenting opinion considered section 129A to be the only permissible method of proof and favoured acquittal. en-us Mon, 11 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Sep 2017 18:34:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194392 A chemical examination report of blood collected outside the procedure under section 129A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was held admissible for invoking the presumption under section 66(2), because section 129A was not treated as the exclusive mode of proof and relevant reports remained admissible under the general law of evidence. The Court also held that retrial is an exceptional remedy and should not be ordered merely to cure evidentiary deficiencies; where further evidence is needed, the appellate court should ordinarily permit additional evidence and then decide the appeal. A dissenting opinion considered section 129A to be the only permissible method of proof and favoured acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194392