( 1 ) THIS revision application has been filed by the original accused against the order of the Sessions Judge Amreli dismissing his appeal against his conviction under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 hereinafter referred to as `the Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bagasara-Wadia and for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution was that the accused was driving S. T. Bus between Bhavnagar and Jamnagar on 27th November 1963 When the said bus stopped at Babra the accused and the driver of the motor bus had gone to a house near the bus stand and had consumed illicit liquor there. The driver had thereafter taken the motor bus along the road to Rajkot. The motor bus met with a serious accident in which several persons sitting in the bus were injured and one of them had died. The P. S. O. at Babra Police Station was one Abdullah Nurmahomed. On receiving the information at 3-50 P. M. about this accident this P. S. O. registered the offence and started investigation. As he learned that the driver of the bus and the accused were drunk he came to Babra for the inquiry. As the motor bus driver and the injured persons and the accused had been removed to the hospital the P. S. O. contacted the accused in the hospital. P. S. O. Abdullah found that the accused mouth was smelling of alcohol and his speech was incoherent. He called the Panchas and made a panchnama of his condition. Thereafter his blood and urine were collected by the doctor of the hospital for chemical analysis. The P. S. O. registered his complaint at Ex. 8. The doctor had entrusted blood and urine bottle to the P. S. O. who handed it over to the head constable Kashiram Raghavdas who took over the charge from head constable Abdullah. This P. S. O. Kashiram sent the two sealed bottles of accused blood and urine to the Chemical Analyser with constable Vamanrao Govindrao. The report of the Chemical Analyser which was sent to P. S. I. Babra on 16th December 1963 showed that as a result of the analysis carried on 30th November 1963 the blood concentration was 0. 0644% of W/v of ethyl alcohol. From this concentration of alcohol in the blood the presumption under sec. 66 (2) was invoked. The accused was chargesheeted for the offences under sec. 66 (1) (b) and sec. 85 of the Act. The trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge under sec. 85 of the Act. It however convicted him for the offence under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the said order the appeal of the accused was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Amreli. The accused has therefore filed the present revision.

( 3 ) MR. Parikh for the accused stated that in the present case the prosecution has relied upon the certificate of the Chemical Analyser for proving the concentration of blood and on the basis of that report presumption under sec. 66 (2) has been drawn against the accused. The prosecution has not tried to prove concentration of blood by any other method. He therefore argued that this report would be inadmissible in evidence as the mandatory requirements for collecting and forwarding the sample of blood to the Chemical Analyser laid down under sec. 129a and Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition Medical Examination and Blood Test Rules 1959 hereinafter referred to as `the rules had not been complied with. Mr. Parikh strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1531. In that case the Supreme Court had interpreted the provisions of secs. 66 (2) 129 and 129b of the Act. At page 1539 it was held by the Supreme Court that sec. 129a was intended primarily to provide for compelling a person reasonably believed by an officer investigating an offence under the Act or by a prohibition officer duly empowered to have consumed liquor to submit him