APEAL.450-01 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 450 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Vs. Ravindra Sitaram Gaikwad ...Respondent *** Mrs. M. R. Tidake, APP for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP for the appellant/State. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2001, passed by the J.M.F.C. Court, Malegaon, who was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under S. 85(1) and 66((1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The learned APP has taken me through the judgment of the trial Court and also the evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution. 2. The prosecution case is that the respondent, a police constable on 3-11-1992 under the influence of liquor had acted in a APEAL.450-01 - 2 - disorderly manner; two panchas were called and the accused was sent to the medical officer, who opined that the accused was smelling of liquor and had consumed the liquor without any license. The trial Court held that the Chemical Analyser was not examined by the prosecution, and therefore, the contents of C.A. report were not proved. It was further observed that the witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. In my view, the trial Court has taken correct view in acquitting the accused. 3. This Court in the the case of Nicklaus Peter Heel Vs. State of Goa [1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 884] has held that non-examination of the Chemical Analyzer is fatal to the prosecution case, in as much as the contents of C.A. reports are not proved. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of - Suleman Usman Menon vs. The State of Gujarat [1961(2) Cri. L .J. 78], in paragraph 5 observed thus:- “It is not enough for the Chemical Examiner merely to state his opinion as to what was the concentration of alcohol in the sample of the blood analysed by him. The report of the Chemical Examiner must show the tests or experiments performed by him, the factual data revealed by such tests or experiments and the reasons leading to the formation of the opinion from such factual data. Otherwise the report would have no value as a piece of APEAL.450-01 - 3 - evidence. This legal proposition emerges clearly and unmistakably if one bears in mind the true nature of the evidence furnished by the report. …... It must, however, be remembered that the opinion of the Chemical Examiner is merely a piece of evidence on the point regarding concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused and it is the Court which has to form its opinion on the entire evidence as to whether the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused was not less than 0.05 per cent. The report of the Chemical Examiner containing his opinion must, therefore, disclose the factual data on which the opinion is based and the reasons in support of the opinion. Opinion is no evidence unless reasons in support of the opinion are given, for it is then only that the Court can scrutinize the reasons and decide for itself as to what weight should be attached to the opinion.” “The opinion of an expert by itself may be relevant but would carry little weight with a Court unless it is supported by a clear statement of what he noticed and on what he based his opinion.” The ratio laid down in both the aforesaid cases squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and order. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]