https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292939 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. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jan 2021 14:25:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292939 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292939