PANDIT UKHA KOLHE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court held that the report of the Chemical Examiner was admissible in evidence despite the blood not being collected in accordance with Section 129A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The Court clarified that Section 129A primarily compels medical examination and blood collection during an investigation, but does not exclude other methods of proving consumption of illicit liquor. The Court upheld the retrial order, emphasizing that the admissibility of evidence is not solely dependent on strict adherence to procedural requirements under Section 129A, as long as the evidence tends to establish the offence under Section 66(2).