IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3076 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Soma Balu Bhandwalkar .. Respondent Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the applicant. Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 18th March 2009. : 18th March 2009. : 18th March 2009. P.C.: . Heard the learned A.P.P for the applicant in support of this application for grant of leave to prefer an appeal where order of acquittal of the respondent is for offences punishable under section 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The learned A.P.P criticised the impugned judgment and order by pointing out that the learned Magistrate has committed an error by recording a finding that there was no evidence on record to show that blood and urine samples of the respondent were obtained by P.W.No.4 who examined the respondent accused. He invited my attention to the document at Exhibit 49 viz, report of the Chemical Analyser recording that the blood samples of the respondent contained certain quantity of ethyl (2) alcohol. He submitted that P.W.No.4 has also deposed that samples were taken. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is perverse. 2. I have perused the record of the case and I have perused the notes of evidence. P.W.No.4 Dr.Vidya, Medical Officer stated that she had obtained blood and urine samples of the respondent. She stated that when she examined the respondent his speech was irrelevant. His gait was steady but his pupils were dilated. She stated that according to her opinion the patient was under an influence of alcohol. 3. Perusal of the certificate at Exhibit 43 issued by the witness does not refer to any report of the Chemical Analyser. The certificate is in a printed format. There is a column in the printed format which requires the Medical Officer to mention whether the blood sample and urine sample of the person was taken or not. The Medical Officer is required to strike out one of the two words "Yes" or "No". However, both words have not been struck out by the Medical Officer. In the cross-examination, P.W.No.4 admitted that the certificate at Exhibit 43 does not clearly states as to whether the blood samples or urine samples were sent to (3) the Chemical Analyser. There is no other evidence adduced to show that the blood samples and urine samples of the accused were taken by the Medical Officer (P.W.4) and the same were sent to the office of the Assistant Chemical Analyser. Unless prosecution adduces evidence to show that the blood sample and urine sample was taken and was in fact forwarded to Chemical Analyser, the certificate issued by the Chemical Analyser (Exhibit 49) does not become relevant. Moreover, the certificate issued at Exhibit 43 by the Medical Officer is on the basis of only the clinical examination. She has recorded that the gait of the accused was steady. 4. In the circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Judge that there was no evidence on record to show that the blood and urine samples of the respondent were taken and were infact sent to the Chemical Analyser is certainly a possible view. There is no case made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)