JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---The revision petitioner challenges the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sholapur confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akalkut, convicting him for an office under section 68(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. 2. Both the learned Advocates for the petitioner accused and Mr. Deshmukh, Public Prosecutor found much difficulty in making any head or tail and of reading the judgments of the courts below. That is why all of us went through the original record of the case Mr. Deshmukh was fair enough to concede that this is a clear case where even putting the case of the prosecution at its highest the accused-revision petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 3. Having regard to the manner in which the evidence has been given by the witnesses it is difficult to state the case for the prosecution in a conventional manner. Suffice it to say that the case for the prosecution was as under : On 14th August, 1974, Ashok (P.W. 6), (even the numbering of the witnesses in the record is not correct), a boy aged 19 years had gone near the Land Development Bank at Akalkot at about 9 p.m. for answering the call of nature. While he was returning he was accosted by two unknown drunken persons and was assaulted. He raised a cry. The people who collected took those unknown persons to the Police Station. Revanisdha, the father of this Ashok went to the Police Station on learned about the same. It appears that there was some incident between the unknown drunken persons and Ashok and his father in the Police Station also. Surprising we are told that the accused who was a Police Constable attached to that Police Station and was actually present in the Police Station, was sent by Head Constable Isaq (P.W. 4), to the Medical Officer. Evidently he must have also sent the other two unknown drunken persons who were brought by the people to the Police Station for having assaulted Ashok in a drunken condition and created a scene. But nothing is known about those persons. The accused, however, was sent to the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer Dr. Padgaonkar (P.W. 8), noticed some injury on the person of Ashok and his father Revansidha. But nothing is known about those persons. The accused, however, was sent to the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer Dr. Padgaonkar (P.W. 8), noticed some injury on the person of Ashok and his father Revansidha. On Examination he found that the accused was not under the influence of alcohol although his breath was smelling of alcohol. His speech was normal and his gait was steady. It appears that he also took the blood of the accused and handed it over to Police Constable Ekanath (P.W. 5), along with a letter which is not on record. The Police Constable took it to the Chemical, Analyser but as the phial containing the blood was not accompanied by B form the Chemical Analyser did not accept it and, therefore, the Constable came and informed the P.S.I. about the same and it is thereafter we are told that a B form was secured from Dr. Padgaonkar and Constable Ekanath produced the phial with the B form before the Chemical Analyser on 25th August, 1974. The report of the Chemical Analyser at Exhibit 16 show that although the seal was intact it was indecipherable. According to the analysis the blood contained 0.076% w/v of ethyl alcohol. On theses facts the accused was prosecuted for offences under section 85(1), (2) and 66(1)(k) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was that under the advice of Dr. Antrolikar (D.W. 1) who had advised him the tonic of wine hepear B 12, he had consumed the same and he further stated that he was falsely involved by head Constable Isaq because of enmity between the said head Constable and the father of the accused who was also a Head Constable. 5. The learned Magistrate held from the evidence on record that no case was made out under section 85(1)(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. But as he disbelieved the version of the accused and Dr. Antrolikar, relying on sub-section (2) of section 66, he convicted the accused for an offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and sentenced him as stated at the outset of this judgment. 6. That conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal. 7. The correctness of that judgment of conviction and sentence is challenged in this revision application. 8. 6. That conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on appeal. 7. The correctness of that judgment of conviction and sentence is challenged in this revision application. 8. As I stated earlier, after going through the judgments and the entire record it was difficult to make out as to why at all the accused should have been sent by Head Constable Isaq to the Medical Officer for examination. It is not at all the case of Isaq that the accused was under the influence of drink. Ashok (P.W. 6), who was assaulted by unknown drunkards who were taken along with him to the Police Station does not say that the accused had anything to do with that incident. 9. It may be noted that the Medical Officer found that although the breath of the accused was smelling of alcohol, there was no symptom of the accused being under the influence of drink and far from that his gait was steady and his speech was normal. Inspite of that position both the courts have convicted the accused solely relying on the presumption under section 66(2) read with Chemical Analysers report Exhibit 16. But the question which I have to consider is as to whether the prosecution has satisfactorily established the identity of the blood which was the subject matter of the report of the Chemical Analyser. 10. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, provides inter alia, that the sample of blood collected in the phial shall be forwarded for test to the Testing Officer either by post or with a special messenger and that it shall be accompanied by a forwarding letter in Form B which shall bear a facimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial, of the sample blood. Now that B form also bears the endorsement consistent with that rule that it should bear a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial of the sample blood. The O Form in which the certificate is to be issued requires the Chemical Officer to mention whether the seal is perfect and as per copy sent. Now that B form also bears the endorsement consistent with that rule that it should bear a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial of the sample blood. The O Form in which the certificate is to be issued requires the Chemical Officer to mention whether the seal is perfect and as per copy sent. Now, in the instant case as I have already pointed out the B Form was not at all sent initially along with the phial containing the blood which was sent through Head Constable Ekanath to the Chemical Analyser and that is precisely why the Chemical Analyser refused to accept the phial and the Constable was requires to go back to Akalkot and to contact the Sub-Inspector. It is, therefore, we are told that a B Form was secured from the Medical Officer Dr. Padgaonkar and the Constable handed over the phial to the Chemical Analyser along with B form on 21 August, 1974. But the important point to be considered is that in order that the identity of the blood may be fixed unmistakably it is not enough that the seal on the phial is perfect but it must be as per copy sent as appears from the requirements of the form C in which the certificate is issued by the Chemical Analyser. Now, in the instant case, the Chemical Analyser has been careful enough to score out from the printed form C the expression "as per copy sent" and has instead mentioned in capital letters that it was under pherable. In other words it is not satisfactorily established that blood which was the subject matter of analysis by the Chemical Analyser was the blood of the accused. In that state of the record it would appear that the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. Even as I have stated earlier putting the case of the prosecution at its highest as submitted by Mr. Deshmukh the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. In the result the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged. His bail-bond is cancelled. The fine, if paid, may be refunded to him. -----