V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE State has come in the appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-accused a police sub-Inspector by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1978 who was convicted by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad in Criminal Case no. 1750 of 1977 for the offence punishable under sec. 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 250. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo one months further rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE case against the respondent-accused is that on 26-5-1977 at about 0. 20 hours he was found having consumed alcohol and moving in the compound of the Town Hall at Ahmedabad. He was taken to Civil Hospital Ahmedabad where Medical officer Dr. (Miss) Aruna Madhusudan Joshipura examined him and certified that the accused was not under the influence of alcohol but that he had consumed liquor. The doctor extracted 5 c. c. of blood from the vein of the accused for the purpose of analysis. The Chemical Analyser who analysed the blood of the accused found that it contained 0. 1564 per cent. W/v of ethyl alcohol. The accused was therefore charge-sheeted to the Court. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who tried the accused ultimately convicted the accused for the offence under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. He however acquitted the accused for the offence under sec. 85 (1) (3) of the Act as he was not under the influence of alcohol. In the appellate Court the accused was acquitted on the ground that the mandatory provisions contained in rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Blood Test Rules) were not followed. The State has therefore come in appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned appellate Judge considered rule 4 (1) of the Blood Test Rules which is to the following effect:"4 (1) The registered medical practitioner shall use a syringe for the collection of the blood of the person produced before him under rule 3. The syringe shall be sterilized by putting in boiling water before it is used for the aforesaid purpose. The syringe shall be sterilized by putting in boiling water before it is used for the aforesaid purpose. He shall clean with sterilized water and swab the skin surface of that part of such parsons body from which he intends to withdraw the blood. No alcohol shill be touched at any stage while withdrawing blood from the body of the parson. He shall withdraw not less than 5 c. c. of venous blood is the syringe from the body of the person. The blood collected in the syringe shall then be transferred into a phial containing anti-coagulant and preservative and the phial shall then be shaken vigorously to dissolve the anti-coagulant and preservative in the blood. The phial shall be labelled and its cap sealed by means of sealing wax with the official seal or the monogram of the registered medical practitioner". [his Lordship after discussing the evidence held that under the circumstances it cannot be said that the accused has rebutted the presumption arising under sec 65 (2) of the Act. His Lordship further observed:] ( 4 ) THEN Mr. Thakore argued the last limb of his case which of course was not put before the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned appellate Judge. It is his submission that according to the Blood Test Rules in the last portion of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 it is provided that the phial in which blood is transferred shall be labelled and its cap sealed by means of sealing wax with the official seal or the monogram of the registered medical practitioner. Mr. Thakore has laid stress on the words 4 with the official seal or the monogram of the registered medical practitioner. ( 5 ) DR. Joshipura has specifically deposed in her examination-in- chief that the phial after having been vigorously shaken was labelled sealed with the seal impression of Government of Gujarat. So there is no dispute about labelling and sealing. But the dispute is pertaining to the use of a particular seal. It is clear that the impression of the seal used by Ms Joshipura was Government of Gujarat. The requirement of rule 4 of the Blood lest Rules is that the phial should be sealed with the official seal or the monogram of the registered medical practitioner. Though this Dr. It is clear that the impression of the seal used by Ms Joshipura was Government of Gujarat. The requirement of rule 4 of the Blood lest Rules is that the phial should be sealed with the official seal or the monogram of the registered medical practitioner. Though this Dr. Joshipura came with a case that she had used the seal impression of Government of Gujarat no question is put to her as to whether that was her official seal. Question of using a monogram in the instant case would not arise because Dr. Joshipura is a medical officer attached to the Civil Hospital and therefore she is not a private registered medical practitioner who would be required to use a monogram. As she is the medical officer in Government Civil Hospital she would naturally use the official seal. Question therefore is whether it can be said that the seal Government of Gujarat is or is not an official seal of this Dr. Joshipura. ( 6 ) IN order to support his argument Mr. Thakore firstly relied on the decision of a Division Beach of this Court consisting of D. P. Desai and M. K. Shah JJ. in The State of Gujarat v. Jonsing Canqusing Rajput Criminal Appeal no. 598 of 1975 decided on 24-8-1978 and reported is 1979 Criminal Law Reporter 181 (Gujarat ). In that case the phial was sealed with the seal of S. S. G. Hospital MLD Baroda. The Division Bench considered it to mean seal of the Medico-Legal Department of the hospital and not the seal of the medical practitioner who had collected the blood. In that case the Division Bench found two affirmants first was about the seal and the second was that the report showed that the sample was sent by registered post while P. W. 5. Chandrasinh deposed that he had carried the sample personally. It was therefore considered that these were the two features which disclose that the procedure which is of a mandatory nature as prescribed by rule 4 was not followed in that case. Therefore it was considered that the report of the chemical analyser Ex. 6 would not be helpful to the prosecution to raise presumption against the accused. It was therefore considered that these were the two features which disclose that the procedure which is of a mandatory nature as prescribed by rule 4 was not followed in that case. Therefore it was considered that the report of the chemical analyser Ex. 6 would not be helpful to the prosecution to raise presumption against the accused. ( 7 ) AS we have considered earlier the requirement of rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules is that there should be an official seal or monogram of the registered medical practitioner. We have to appreciate that so far as the word seal is concerned it requires to be the official seal of the registered medical practitioner and if the official seal is not there then there should be a monogram of the registered medical practitioner used which would be the personal monogram of the medical officer concerned. This eventuality of monogram would arise in the case of a medical practitioner who does not collect blood in his official capacity attached to the hospital or that hospital has not official seal. ( 8 ) SEC 2 (38) of the Act defines registered medical practitioner as under:"2 In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context (38) registered medical practitioner means a person who is entitled to practice any system of medicine in the state under any law for the time being in force relating to medical practitioners and includes registered dentists. . . . So the definition under the Act covers all the registered medical practitioners while under the Blood Test Rules sub-rule (4) of rule 2 defines registered medical practitioner as under:"2 In these Rules unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context - (4) registered Medical Practitioner means any registered medical practitioner authorised by general or special order by the State Government under sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (4) of sec. 129-A of the Act". Under sec. 129-A of the Act for establishing that a particular person has consumed an intoxicant or for the purpose of procuring of evidence thereof the prohibition officer or the Police Officer has to produce such a person before the registered medical practitioner authorised by general or special order by the State Government in this behalf for the purpose of such medical examination. So the Blood Test Rules circumscribe the particular registered medical practitioners so far as the blood-test examination is concerned and by notification under section 129-A of the Act the State Government has authorised eight categories of persons to be the registered medical practitioners for testing blood. We are not concerned with the details of those medical officers but it shows that so many categories are considered to be the registered medical practitioners authorised for testing of blood. Each may have a different official seal of the office or the seal used by him as an official seal whatever it may be and if there is no official seal then he has to use the monogram. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jonsing Rajputs case (Supra) shows that if there is no official seal then the monogram of the registered medical practitioner should be there. It is not laid down therein that even in case of an official seal it must contain the monogram of the registered medical practitioner. Attempt before us is to show that Dr. Joshipura should have used her own seal but as considered earlier if the official seal is there then the question of her own monogram which is attempted to be mentioned as a seal before us would not arise. So such an argument that even in case of official seal must contain the monogram of the registered medical practitioner cannot appeal to us for the simple reason that an official seal stands on a different footing from the monogram of the registered medical practitioner. If that is attempted to he imported then it would be doing violence to the language of rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules which distinguishes an official seal from the monogram of a registered medical practitioner. This is quite obvious from the disjunctive conjunction or used between the expressions official seal and monogram. We therefore do not find any merit in the argument that according to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jonsing Rajputs case (Supra) even in case of official seal monogram of registered medical practitioner must appear. This is quite obvious from the disjunctive conjunction or used between the expressions official seal and monogram. We therefore do not find any merit in the argument that according to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jonsing Rajputs case (Supra) even in case of official seal monogram of registered medical practitioner must appear. It was never argued before the Division Bench that the seal of S. S. G. Hospital Baroda was an official seal and because that argument was not advanced considering the requirement of rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules the Division Bench considered that there was necessity of a monogram (seal) of the registered medical practitioner who had collected the blood. We do not know what view the Division Bench would have taken if there was evidence before it that the seal on the phial was the official seal of the registered medical practitioner. Here before us it has been specifically argued that the seal Government of Gujarat is an official seal of the Medical Officer. This can really be inferred from the evidence of Dr. Joshipura because she was applied the seal in consonance with rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules and the seal applied by her is the seal bearing the impression Government of Gujarat showing that it is her official seal i. e. the official seal of the registered medical practitioner and when she has used that particular seal it would be presumed that it is her official seal as this presumption can be raised under sec. 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. ( 10 ) WE would at this stage also refter to the decision of a single Judge of this Court (M. K. Shah J. ). In Mahajibhai Lakhabhai v. State of Gujarat Criminal Revision Application No. 111 of 1980 decided on 30 and reported in 1981 Criminal Law Reporter 185 (Gujarat)- 1980 (2) G. L. R. 159 wherein M. K. Shah J. has also relied on the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jonsing Rajputs case (supra) to which also he was a party and observed:"the seal affixed was not of the registered medical practitioner who had collected the blood that is Dr. Arvind K. Patel but the seal affixed was the seal of the S. S. G. Hospital (M. L. O.) Baroda". Arvind K. Patel but the seal affixed was the seal of the S. S. G. Hospital (M. L. O.) Baroda". As considered by us earlier so far as the medical officer in that case is concerned there is no question of any seal but the requirement of the monogram of a particular registered medical practitioner is necessary but if the registered medical practitioner uses the official seal then the question of a seal or monogram in the individual name of the registered medical practitioner would never arise. If this aspect is imported in rule 4 then it would be stretching it too far. This would mean that even if the medical practitioner has affixed his official seal or the seal of his office still however there would be necessity of his personal monogram in order to have authenticity of the sample of blood sent to the chemical analyser. We must not lose sight of the fact that this provision of having a seal mentioned also in Form B is necessary in order to safeguard the interest of the person whose blood is collected and also to assure authenticity by comparing the two seals. Intention of the rule is that the seal affixed on the phial must be identical to the seal mentioned by the medical officer in Form B wherein facsimile of the seal is required to be mentioned. If both tally the chemical analyser can be confident about the authenticity of the sample sent for analysis. So if from the seal of the medical officer it can be said that the seals on the bottle and the seal which he had affixed on Form B are the same then the requirement of rule 4 can certainly be said to have been complied with because it is a safeguard to vouchsafe the authenticity of the blood sent. In order to have a safeguard rule 4 provides that either an official seal be used by the registered medical practitioner or if there is no official seal then he shall have to use his monogram. ( 11 ) A faint argument was advanced by Mr. Thakore by referring to Ex. 7 (Form B) a letter by the Medical Officer informing about forwarding by R. P. P. blood phial. This was received by the office of the Chemical Analyser Junagadh. On this Ex. ( 11 ) A faint argument was advanced by Mr. Thakore by referring to Ex. 7 (Form B) a letter by the Medical Officer informing about forwarding by R. P. P. blood phial. This was received by the office of the Chemical Analyser Junagadh. On this Ex. 7 there is seal of the Medical Officer Government of Gujarat and there is also seal of the Chemical Analyser Junagadh. From this Mr. Thakore wanted to submit that if the official seal of the Chemical Analyser Junagadh is in his own name then for the Civil Hospital also there should be the seal in its name and that should be considered to be the official seal and if that is not there than there should be the personal seal (monogram) of Dr. Joshipura. We are not prepared to accept this argument of Mr. Thakore mainly because according to the evidence of Dr. Joshipura she has affixed the seal of Government of Gujarat which is her official seal. Therefore it cannot be said that it is almost imperative to use the seal of Civil Hospital just in order to make it the official seal. ( 12 ) UNDER these circumstances we come to the conclusion that the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the learned appellate Judge is not justified. The appeal therefore filed by the State requires to be allowed. Acquittal set aside. .