S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE question posed for consideration of the Full Bench pertains to the correct interpretation of the words official seal of the registered medical practitioner as employed by Rule 4 (1) of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination Blood Test) Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Blood Test Rules) framed under Section 143 (2) (w) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act ). Whether the concerned registered medical practitioner who collects blood from the accused has to use his own seal if any or whether he can utilise the official seal of the hospital to which he is attached is the vexed question which has to be answered on the interpretation of the aforesaid words employed in the last sentence of Rule 4 quoted above. ( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to grapple with the aforesaid question it would be advantageous to refer to the background facts which have led to the present reference to the Full Bench. ( 3 ) THE applicant in the present revision application was charged under Section 66 (1) (b) and Section 85 (1) (3) of the Prohibition Act before the learned J. M. F. C. Kheralu. It was alleged that the applicant was found in a drunken state at about 1. 10 p. m. On 30-11-1977 near the panchayat office situated at village Mandhropur in Kheralu taluka of Mehsana district. A written report was lodged in that connection by one Chimanbhai Virambhai in Kheralu police station. On the basis of the said report the complainant and other police constables were sent by the police station officer Kheralu to village Mandhropur. It is alleged that they found the applicant near the panchayat office and he was allegedly smelling of alcohol and was uttering abusive language. A panchnama of his physical condition was made and thereafter the applicant was sent br medical examination to the Government dispensary at Kherala. Dr. Dave working in the said dispensary examined the applicant and found that the applicant was smelling of alcohol that his gait was steady his speech was coherent but he was found to have allegedly consumed liquor. However he was not found to be under the influence of drink. Thereafter Dr. Dr. Dave working in the said dispensary examined the applicant and found that the applicant was smelling of alcohol that his gait was steady his speech was coherent but he was found to have allegedly consumed liquor. However he was not found to be under the influence of drink. Thereafter Dr. Dave collected 5 c. c. of veinous blood of the applicant and adding anti-coagulant and preservatives he sent the phial to the chemical analyser for blood analysis. The said phial was sealed and the the seal mentioning the words medicolegal Bombay was affixed on the phial. The chemical analyser who examined the blood sample so collected and sent to him issued a report Exhibit 14 where-in it was found that alcohol concentration was to the extent of 0. 1426 per cent being weight volume of ethyl alcohol. It is on the basis of the aforesaid report that the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant of the offence under Section 66 (1) (b) as well as under Section 85 (1) (3) of the Prohibition Act read with Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act 1951. The applicant was sentenced to suffer R. I. for three months for the offence under Section 66 (1) (b) and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default 30 days R. I. ; while for the offence under Section 85 (1) (3) he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for 7 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-in default 5 days R. I. He was also sentenced to pay Rs. 10/- as fine for the offence under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act in default undergo 3 days R. I. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The applicant carried the matter in appeal to the court of Section at Mehsana being criminal appeal No. 123 of 1979. His appeal came to be dismissed on merits but the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 66 (1) (b) was varied by the learned Session Judge and instead of the sentence as passed by the learned Magistrate he reduced the sentence of R. I. to 15 days and fine of Rs. 100/- in default R. I. for 7 days. Rest of the order relating to the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 85 (1) (3) of the Prohibition Act was confirmed. 100/- in default R. I. for 7 days. Rest of the order relating to the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 85 (1) (3) of the Prohibition Act was confirmed. Conviction under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act was however altered to conviction under Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 10/- in default R. I. for 3 days was imposed. It is in these circumstances that the applicant landed in this court by way of the present revision application. Initially A. M. Surti J. granted bali pending admission to the applicant and there-after the revision application was admitted to final hearing by Bedarkar J. and the applicant was continued on the same bail fresh bonds. Thereafter this revision application reached final hearing before V. V. Bedarkar J. in October 1980. During the course of arguments before Bedarkar J. it was urged on behalf of the applicant that the seal affixed by the medical officer of Kheralu Government dispensary was not the official seal of the registered medical practitioner who had extracted blood from the vein of the accused and hence requirements of Rule 4 (1) of the Blood Test Rules were not complied with and hence the sample of blood collected and which was sent for analysis to the chemical analyser was not collected according to rules. Consequently it was urged the report of the chemical analyst could not be relied upon. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance was placed on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this court consisting of D. P. Desai and M. K. Shah JJ. in criminal appeal No. 598 of 1975 decided on 24 In the said judgment amongst others the Division Bench speaking through M. K. Shah J. had found one infirmmity in the process of collection of sample of blood from the accused at the S. S. G. Hospital at Baroda that the seal of the medico-legal department of the hospital was affixed on the blood sample phial and the seal of the registered medical practitioner who had collected the blood was not affixed. Accordingly the seal was not found to be in conformity with the requirements of the blood test rules. Accordingly the seal was not found to be in conformity with the requirements of the blood test rules. Bedarkar J. was not inclined to agree with the aforesaid reasoning and the conclusion of the Division Bench and hence he referred the present revision application to a larger bench Accordingly this revision application was placed before a larger bench connsisting of A. M. Ahmadi and R. C. Mankad JJ. under the orders of the learned Chief Justice. The aforesaid Division Bench in its turn vide its order dated 19-12-1980 speaking through Ahmadi J. referred this matter to a still larger bench as in its view the question was required to be considered by a larger bench. It is in these circumstances that this revision application has been placed before the present Full Bench. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contours of controversy posed for our consideration in the present case it would be advantageous to briefly glance through the relevant statutory provisions holding the field. Chapter IX of the Prohibition Act deals with powers and duties of officers and procedure. In the said chapter is found Section 129 which empowers any prohibition officer or a police officer to require persons accused of offences under the Act to submit to medical examination etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 129-A provides- (1) When in the investigation of any offence under this Act any prohibition officer duly empowered in this behalf by the State Government or any police officer has reasonable ground for believing that a person has consumed an intoxicant and that for the purpose of establishing that he has consumed an intoxicant or for the procuring of evidence thereof it is necessary that his body be medically examined or that his blood be collected for being tested for determining the percentage of alcohol therein such prohibition officer or police officer may produce such person before a registered medical practitioner (authorised by general or special order by the State Government in this behalf) for the purpose of such medical examination or collection of blood and request such registered medical practitioner to furnish a certificate on his finding whether such person has consumed any intoxicant and to forward the blood collected by him for test to the chemical examiner or assistant chemical examiner to Government or to such other officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf. Under sub-section (2) of Section 129-A the registered medical practitioner before whom such person has been produced is required to examine such person and collect and forward in the manner prescribed the blood of such person and furnish to the officer by whom such person has been produced a certificate in the prescribed form containing result of his examination. The aforesaid provisions indicate that the concerned person who is alleged to have consumed intoxicant has to be produced for the purpose of medical examination before a registered medical practitioner as authorised by general or special order by the State Government in this behalf. The term registered medical practitioner has been defined by Section 2 (38) of the Act to mean a person who is entitled to practise any system of medicine in the State under any law for the time being in force relating to medical practitioners and includes registered dentists as defined in the Dentists Act 1948 and a veterinary practitioner registered under the Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act 1953 or under any law corresponding thereto in any part of the State. In view of the aforesaid widely worded definition of the term registered medical practitioner even veterinary doctors would be treated as registered medical practitioners. However for the purpose of Section 129-A only those registered medical practitioners who are authorised by general or special order of the State Government can medically examine the concerned person who is alleged to have consumed intoxicant and only such registered medical practitioner can collect blood from the concerned person. Thus not all registered practitioners practising any system of medicine in the State but only authorised registered medical practitioners as per Section 129 can act as medical examiners and can collect blood sample from the concerned accused. Under Section 143 of the Prohibition Act the State Government has been empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying out provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue. Sub-section (2) of Section 143 particularises without prejudice to the generality of the earlier provision rule making power of the State Government topicwise. Sub-section (2) of Section 143 particularises without prejudice to the generality of the earlier provision rule making power of the State Government topicwise. Section 143 (2) (w) deals with topic of prescribing the manner of collecting and forwarding blood and prescribing the form of certificate and the other particulars required to be stated therein under sub-section (2) of Section 129-A. Thus the manner prescribed for medical examination of the concerned accused who is alleged to have consumed intoxicant and the method of collecting his blood sample can be prescribed by rules framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 143 (2) (w ). ( 5 ) SO far as authorised registered medical practitioners who can exercise powers under Section 129-A and who can medically examine the concerned accused and who can draw sample of blood from his vein for the purpose of getting it tested by chemical examiner are concerned the then State of Bombay as per Government notification No. C. R. R. D. No. BPA 1059/40722 (e) dated 1 published in the Bombay Government Gazette Part IV-B 1959 Page 551 had authorised all registered medical practitioners in charge of or serving at any allopathic hospitals or dispensaries maintained by the State Government in the State of Bombay to act as registered medical practitioners for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 129-A. By another notification No. G. O. P. D. No. BPA-1059140722 (f) of even date published in the very same gazette on the same page the Government of Bombay also authorised all female-registered medical practitioners in charge of or serving at any allopathic hospitals or dispensaries maintained by the State Government in the State of Bombay to act as registered medical practitioners for the purposes of sub-section (4) of Section 129-A. The aforesaid provisions with medical examination of female accused. After bifurcation of the bigger bilingual State of Bombay and formation of the State of Gujarat the aforesaid notification were supplemented by two other notifications. So Ar as authorised registered medical practitioners referred to in Section 129-A (1) were concerned their ranks were swelled by Government notification G. O. E. and L. D. No. GH-SJ-1018-BPA-1064-72270-DH dated 15-12-1964 published in the Gujarat Government Gazette Part IV-B 1965 page 1. So Ar as authorised registered medical practitioners referred to in Section 129-A (1) were concerned their ranks were swelled by Government notification G. O. E. and L. D. No. GH-SJ-1018-BPA-1064-72270-DH dated 15-12-1964 published in the Gujarat Government Gazette Part IV-B 1965 page 1. As per the said notification it was provided that in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 129-A the Government of Gujarat authorised all registered medical practitioners in charge of or serving at any allopathic hospitals or dispensaries maintained by the municipalities or the panchayats in the State of Gujarat as authorised registered medical practitioners br the purpose of sub section (1) of Section 1299-A. While so far as female authorised medical practitioners referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 129-A were concerned addition were made their ranks by authorising all female registered medical practitioners in charge of or serving at any allopathic hospitals or dispensaries maintained by municipalities or panchayat in the State of Gujarat to act as registered medical practitioners for the purpose or Section 129 (4) of the Prohibition Act. The concerned notification was G. J. E. and L. D. No. GH-SH/1019/ BPA-1064/72720 (A)-DH dated 14-12-1964 published in the Gujarat Government Gazette Part IV-B 1964 page 987. ( 6 ) MR. Vin for the opponent State stated on instructions that the aforesaid are the relevant bur notifications which hold the field till today. ( 7 ) AS seen earlier under Section 129-A (2) the concerned authorised registered medical practitioner has to examine the person concerned and to collect blood from him and forward it for the purpose of analysis to the chemical analyser in the manner prescribed. As per Section 2 of the Act the term prescribed is defined to mean prescribed by the rules orders or regulations under the Act. In exercise of the statutory powers under Section 143 (2) (w) to which a reference was made by us a little while ago the then Sate of Bombay had framed rules called Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules 1959 The said rules have continued to operate even after the formation of the State of Gujarat and have remained in force all throughout. Rule 2 is the dictionary clause of the said rules. Rule 2 is the dictionary clause of the said rules. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 defines registered medical practitioner to mean any registered medical practitioner authorised by general or special order by the State Government under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of Section 129-A of the Act. As per Rule 3 of the rules a registered medical practitioner before whom a person is produced under sub-section (1) of Section 129-A of the Act by a police officer or a prohibition officer for the purpose of medical examination of such person or collection of his blood shall examine such person and if he deems necessary collect and forward in the manner prescribed in these rules the blood of such person and furnish to the officer by whom such person was produced a certificate in form A containing the result of his examination and shall keep a copy of such certificate on his record. Then follows Rule 4 which is required to be extracted in full as under: (1) The registered medical practitioner shall use a syringe br the collection of the blood of the person produced before him under Rule 3. The syringe shall be sterilized by putting it in the boiling water and swab the skin surface of that part of such persons body face which he intends to withdraw the blood. No alcohol shall be touched at any stage while withdrawing blood from the body of the person. He shall withdraw not less than 5 c. c. of veinous blood in the syringe from the body of the person. The blood collected in the syringe shall then be transferred into a phial containing anticoagulant and preservatives and the phial shall then be shaken vigorously to dissolve the anticoagulant 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. (2) The sample blood collected in the phial in the manner stated in sub-rule (1) shall be forward for test to the testing officer either by post or with a special messenger so as to reach him within seven days from the date of its collection. It shall be accompanied by a forwarding letter in form B which shall bear a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing of the sample blood. It shall be accompanied by a forwarding letter in form B which shall bear a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing of the sample blood. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 indicates various stages by which authorised registered medical practitioner has to arrange to extract blood form the vein of the concerned accused. In the present reference we are concerned with the last stage of the said exercise. After the blood from the concerned person is extracted and collected in the phial the phial is required to be sealed by means of sealing wax and having done so the concerned registered medical practitioner who draws this blood sample has to affix the official seal or monogram. Such official seal or monogram is required to be that of the registered medical practitioner meaning thereby of the medical officer who draws blood of the concerned accused and collect it in the phial Form B annexure to the rules prescribes the statutory form of the forwarding letter addressed to the testing officer and issued under the signature of the concerned registered medical practitioner. Designation of the registered medical practitioner has also to be mentioned alongwith his signature at the right hand side bottom of the forwarding letter; while on the left hand side bottom is reserved the space for affixing fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial containing blood. The aforesaid provisions of the rule when read in the light of the provision of Section 129 - (1) and (2) leave no room for doubt that various procedural safeguards have been advisedly provided for with a view to ensuring safe custody and conveyance of the collected blood sample for its ultimate examination and testing by the chemical analyser. The medical officer who examines the concerned accused and who is charged with the duty of collecting blood sample has to see to it that the collected blood sample is properly preserved in the phial and the concerned phial is so sealed that it might avoid all possibilities of pilferage or tampering with such phial Label of the phial and the sealing of its cap by sealing wax will ensure that the blood collected from the concerned accuscd safely reaches the table of the chemical analyser for analysis and the analysis would be of the blood of the accused and of no one eke. In order to ensure further authenticity in that connection and to insulate the collected blood sample from any remotest possibility of being tampered with on way during it transit from the place of collection of blood to its ultimate destination-laboratory of the chemical analyser a farther provision is made by Rule 4 that the concerned registered medical practitioner who collects sample of blood from the vein of the accused has to affix his official seal or monogram on the sealed phial. Fascimile of such seal or monogram has also to be sent by the concerned registered medical practitioner collecting blood sample along with the forwarding letter addressed to the testing officer. This procedure enables the testing officer to compare the fascimile of the seal or monogram with the seal or monogram affixed on the phial containing the blood sample when it reaches his end. When this seal or monogram is found to be intact and it tallies with the fascimile of the seal or monogram as affixed in the forwarding letter authenticity of the collected blood sample would become safely established. Under these circumstances it has to be observed that putting of the official seal or monogram of the registered medical practitioner on the sample of collected blood at his end is a very vital requirement of the rule and it insulates against all possibility of the sample getting pilfered or tampered with during the transit. It may be profitable to have a look at the dictionary meaning of the words official and seal as these words are not defined either by the rules or by the Act. As per Shorter Oxford Dictionary the term official is stated to mean of an office or of the tenure of an office: (properly authorised;) and as noun-person holding public office or engaged in official duty; while the term seal is stated to mean piece of wax lead or other such material impressed with device and attached in some way to document or to envelope or to any receptacle such as box or room or house to prevent its being opened; etc. Thus the term official seal would mean seal pertaining to the office of the concerned person using the seal. It is obvious that if the concerned person is holding any office and he has got official seal pertaining to his office it would be his official seal. Thus the term official seal would mean seal pertaining to the office of the concerned person using the seal. It is obvious that if the concerned person is holding any office and he has got official seal pertaining to his office it would be his official seal. But if there is no such official seal his personal seal if any mentioning his designation would also be his official seal. ( 8 ) IT is in this background of the aforesaid provisions that we have to consider the moot question posed for our consideration. The term official seal or monogram of the registered medical practitioner as employed in the last sentence of Rule 4 (1) necessarily seeks to connect the concerned authorised registered medical practitioner who draws the blood from the vein of the accused with the phial in which collected blood is preserved and despatched for medical testing at the laboratory of the chemical analyser. We have already seen the relevant Government notifications issued under Section 129 (1) and (4) authorising a fixed category of registered medical practitioners to act as authorised registered medical practitioners for the purpose of medical examination of and collection of blood samples from the concerned accused who are alleged to have consumed intoxicants. We have already seen that however widely worded is the definition of the term registered medical practitioner in Section 2 (38) of the Act only a limited class of registered medical practitioners can act as authorised registered medical practitioners for the purposes of Section 129-A. The earlier noted four Government notifications indicate that only those registered medical practitioners (both male and female) who are either in charge of or serving at any allopathic hospitals or dispensaries maintained by the State Government or who are in charge of or are serving at any such hospitals or dispensaries maintained by municipalities or panchayats in the State can act as authorised registered medical practitioners for the purpose of Section 129-A (1) and (4 ). It is therefore obvious that private registered medical practitioners however thumping may be their private practice as allopathic doctors or as doctors practising in other systems of medicine cannot act as authorised registered medical practitioners for the aforesaid purpose. It is therefore obvious that private registered medical practitioners however thumping may be their private practice as allopathic doctors or as doctors practising in other systems of medicine cannot act as authorised registered medical practitioners for the aforesaid purpose. It is also trite to observe that all registered medical practitioners who are in charge of or who are attached to allopathic hospitals or dispensaries maintained by the State Government municipalities or panchayats may or may not have their own official seals. As for example a medical officer serving at the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad can be treated as an authorised registered medical officer for the purpose of Section 129-A (1) in the light of the aforesaid Government notifications. If he draws blood from the vein of the accused brought to him for medical examination and collects it in the phial and gets it sealed as per Rule 4 (1) he will have to decide about affixing of the official seal or monogram on the phial for the purpose of complying with the relevant procedural requirements of Rule 4 (1 ). However as he is not in charge of the hospital it is obvious that official seal of the hospital would not be in his custody. In these circumstances his official seal can be his own personal seal if any which would be in his custody. He can affix such a seal on the phial or if he has no such seal of his own he can affix his monogram. That would be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Rule 4 (1 ). But if the concerned authorised medical practitioner who draws blood from the vein of the accused is himself in charge of the concerned allopathic hospital or dispensary maintained by the State Government or municipality or the panchayat as the case may be the official seal of the hospital or dispensary would be in his custody and in his charge as he is in charge of the said hospital or dispensary. In these circumstances he can affix the seal of the hospital which is his official seal as doctor in charge of the hospital or dispensary on the phial or alternatively he may affix his own monogram on the phial. That would also be proper compliance with the provisions of Rule 4 (1 ). In these circumstances he can affix the seal of the hospital which is his official seal as doctor in charge of the hospital or dispensary on the phial or alternatively he may affix his own monogram on the phial. That would also be proper compliance with the provisions of Rule 4 (1 ). In short the concerned authorised registered medical practitioner who collects blood can utilise the official seal of the hospital for the purpose of affixing it on the phial of collected blood if he or she is in charge of the concerned hospital or dispensary. But if the concerned authorised registered medical practitioner is one who is not in charge of such a hospital or dispensary he or she cannot utilise the official seal of the hospital as in his or her case such official seal would not be the official seal of the concerned medical practitioner and in that case the concerned medical officer has to use his her personal seal if any or in the alternative to affix his or her monogram on the phial of collected blood sample. The underlying idea behind the provision for affixing official seal or monogram of the concerned registered medical practitioner on the phial of the collected blood sample seems to be only that seal or monogram which is under the sole charge or custody of the authorised medical practitioner drawing blood and collecting the sample should be utilised for that purpose with a view to seeing that no one else may misuse such seal or monogram and only genuinely collected and authentic blood sample can get tested by the chemical analyser free from any possibility of misuse tampering or substitution thereof. It is easy to visualise that the medical officer in charge of hospital or dispensary would be in the custody of the official seal of the hospital which would not be accessible to any one else. If such a person acts under Rule 4 (1) and extracts blood from the vein of the accused and collects it in the phial he can very well utilise the official seal of the hospital for the purpose of affixing it on the said phial. If such a person acts under Rule 4 (1) and extracts blood from the vein of the accused and collects it in the phial he can very well utilise the official seal of the hospital for the purpose of affixing it on the said phial. No other medical officer or any other staff member working in hospital or dispensary or even a third party would have any access to such a seal which would be in the safe custody of the medical officer in charge and consequently affixing of such an official seal of the hospital by doctor in charge drawing the sample blood would fully satisfy the requirements of Rule 4 (1 ). It is equally easy to visualise that if any other medical officer who is attached to the hospital or dispensary or is serving therein acts as authorised medical practitioner under Section 129 read with Rule 4 (1) he would obviously not be in custody of the official seal of the hospital or dispensary but it would be in the custody of the medical officer in charge. In these circumstances so far as such other medical officer is concerned he cannot utilise the official seal of the hospital or dispensary for the purpose of Rule 4 (1) as that would not be his official seal. In his case his official seal would be his private seal if any otherwise he can affix his monogram on the sample of blood collected by him in the phial. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the consideration of the aforesaid provisions we must observe that the necessity of using the official seal of the concerned medical practitioner collecting blood sample springs from the fact that utilisation of any other seal of the hospital which is not in his charge and safe custody would not rule out the possibility of misuse of such a seal. It is only the use of the seal which is within the safe personal custody of the concerned medical practitioner that can insulate against such possible misuse and there-by the concerned medical practitoner using such seal can remain answerable for its proper use or otherwise. It cannot be said that the aforesaid interpretation of the words official seal or monogram of the registered medical practitoner as employed by Rule 4 (1) is in any way technical or hyper-technical. It cannot be said that the aforesaid interpretation of the words official seal or monogram of the registered medical practitoner as employed by Rule 4 (1) is in any way technical or hyper-technical. If the concerned doctors serving in the hospital have not got their personal seals and if the hospital seals cannot be treated to be their official seals as they are not in charge of the hospital it is not the requirement of Rule 4 (1) that they cannot utilise their monogram. On the contrary in such cases the concerned doctors can very well utilise their own monogram without being forced to have their own seals. Only if they have got their own personal seals they can conveniently utilise the same. Under these circumstances the working of Rule 4 (1) is not likely to cause any undue hardship or inconvenience to any concerned registered medical practitioner drawing blood sample of the accused for analysis as per Rule 4 (1 ). ( 10 ) THE aforesaid discussion yields the following resultant categories of cases- (I) If the authorised registered medical practitioner who collects the blood sample is in charge of the concerned hospital or dispensary he can utilise the official seal of the hospital or dispensary for getting it affixed on the phial of collected blood sample. That would be considered to be his official seal; (II) If the authorised registered medical practitioner who collects the blood sample in the phial as per rule 4 (1) is not in charge of the hospital or dispensary his official seal for the purpose of its affixation on the phial as per Rule 4 (1) would be his personal seal if any and if there is no such seal he can utilise his monogram for the purpose. (III) Any authorised registered medical practitioner who is either a doctor in charge or any other medical practitioner attached to or serving in the hospital or dispensary can in his or her discretion utilise his or her monogram for the purpose of affixing it on the sealed phial even if there is available for the purpose an official seal of the hospital or his own personal seal as the case may. ( 11 ) IT is in the light of the afore-said discussion that we now proceed to consider various decisions which were brought to our notice. ( 11 ) IT is in the light of the afore-said discussion that we now proceed to consider various decisions which were brought to our notice. In the case of Vrajlal Damodar v. State 12 GLR 68 M. P. Thakkar J. (as he then was) had an occasion to consider provisions of Rule 4 (1) of the rules. Having extracted Rule 4 the learned Judge observed at page 69:that the requirement of the rule is mandatory is obvious. The discernible purpose of the rule is to ensure that the blood sample collected by the medical practitioner is collected in such a manner that no alcohol is introduced in the blood sample in the process of collecting the blood. If alcohol is allowed to be introduced in the blood sample from extraneous sources at the time of collecting the sample the very purpose of subjecting the blood sample to chemical examination would be rendered nugatory. So also the legislature wanted to ensure that anticoagulant and preservatives were added to the blood sample and the sample was properly sealed so that there was guarantee that the chemical analysis made and the identity of the blood sample could be ensured. It may be observed that not every direction incorporated in Rule 4 (1) can be characterized as mandatory. However the requirement regarding taking precautions to secure that no alcohol shall be touched at any stage while withdrawing the blood from the body of the person and the requirement regarding dissolving the anticoagulant and preservative in the blood is mandatory in its character. It may not be understood that a literal compliance with every part of the rule should be considered as a mandatory requirement. For instance the rule enjoins that the phial then shall be shaken vigorously. This cannot be said to be a mandatory requirement. It would not be necessary for the prosecution to show that the phial was shaken vigorously. It is also not necessary that the doctor who is examined shall keep before him the text of the rule and should depose to having complied with every small requirement enjoined by the rule and having performed every part of the act in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The Supreme Court had an occation to consider the requirements of Rule 4 (1) in the case of Kisan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1824 . The Supreme Court had an occation to consider the requirements of Rule 4 (1) in the case of Kisan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 1824 . The Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P. B. Kailasam JJ. considered the requirements of Rule 4 (1) of the rules and held that the provisions regarding collection of 5 c. c. blood for the purpose of analysis as required by the said rule was not mandatory in character. It was observed that the provisions of Rule 4 are merely directory and not mandatory and if the public analyst opined that the quantity below 5 c. c. was sufficient for the purpose of analysing the result then the rule mst be deemed to have been substantially complied with. It is obvious that some of the provisions of Rule 4 would be directory while some of them would be mandatory. It is not disputed before us that the provision are sealing of the phial in which collected blood is preserved for being despatched to the chemical analyser and the provision regarding affixing of of official seal or monogram of the concerned registered Medical practitioner collecting such blood is mandatory in character. In fact Mr. Vin learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent fairly stated that this provision was essential provision and complete compliance with the some was absolutely essential for ensuring safe transit of the collected sample from the precincts of the hospital where it was collected to it ultimate destination the laboratory table of the chemical analyser and that the said provision was mandatory in character. ( 12 ) IT is now time for us to refer to decision of a Division Bench of this court which as per Bedarkar J. and also as per the referring order of the Division Bench consisting of A. M. Ahmadi and R. C. Mankad JJ. required reconsideration. In criminal appeal No. 598 of 1975 decided by a Division Bench consisting of D. P. Desai and M. K. Shah JJ. on 24-8-78 and which decision is reported in 1979 Criminal Law Journal (Sic) Reporter 181 M. K. Shah J. speaking for the Division Bench had to consider the question as to whether the order of acquittal as rendered by the learned trial Judge was justified or not. on 24-8-78 and which decision is reported in 1979 Criminal Law Journal (Sic) Reporter 181 M. K. Shah J. speaking for the Division Bench had to consider the question as to whether the order of acquittal as rendered by the learned trial Judge was justified or not. M. K. Shah J. in para 5 of the report noted two grounds put forward by the learned Advocate for the accused in support of the acquittal Firstly it was submitted that in that case there was no evidence led by the prosecution to show that the procedure prescribed by Rule 4 of the rules was followed. On that ground various infirmities where pointed out in the manner of collection of sample blood. Amongst these it was submitted that the registered medical practioner had not stated that the phial in which blood was collected was lablelled by him and its Cap was sealed by means of sealing was with the official seal or the monogram of the said medical practitioner. The Division Bench speaking through M. K. Shah J. in that connection observed-IF we look to the report of the chemical analyser which is at Exhibit 6 it shows that the sample was sent in a phial bearing the seal of S. S. G. Hospital M. L. D. of Baroda that means seal of the medico-legal department of the hospital and not the seal of the medical practitioner who had collected the blood. THIS infirmity in the view of the Division Bench was enough to support the order of acquittal amongst other infirmities. A close look at the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the Division Bench shows that it has flown from the factual background peculiar to that case. In the case before the Division Bench the authorised registered medical practitioner who collected sample of blood for the purpose of analysis was one Dr. Bharat Patel Exhibit 4. While sealing the phial he had affixed the seal of S. S. G. Hospital M. I. D. Baroda and had not utilised his own seal. In the case before the Division Bench the authorised registered medical practitioner who collected sample of blood for the purpose of analysis was one Dr. Bharat Patel Exhibit 4. While sealing the phial he had affixed the seal of S. S. G. Hospital M. I. D. Baroda and had not utilised his own seal. Now it appears that on the facts which were present before the Division Bench the concerned registered medical practitioner who had taken the blood sample did not appear to be the medical officer in charge of the concerned hsopital Under these circumstances he could not have utilised the seal of the S. S. G. Hospital M. L. D. Baroda as the said seal obviously was not in his charge. In these circumstances if he utilised such a seal requirements of Rule 4 (1) would not be satisfied. For satisfying the requirements of Rule 4 (1) in the afore-said facts Dr. Bharat Patel could have utilised either his own personal seal if any which could have been treated as his official seal or if he had no such seal he could have utilised his own monogram. But in any view of the matter simply by utilising seal of the S. S. G. Hospital M. L. D. Baroda he could not have urged with any emphasis that it was his official seal. It is in these circumstances that the Division Bench came to the aforesaid conclusion. In the light of the analysis of various statutory provisions and the requirements of the rule which we have noticed in detail earlier it is obvious that the aforesaid reasoning of the Division Bench is well sustained on the facts of that case and it cannot be said that the said reasoning reflects any error of law. The case before the Division Bench falls within the second category of cases as indicated by us earlier. In such category of cases as the concerned registered medical practitioner is not in charge of the hospital he cannot utilise the hospital seal as his official seal. In our view therefore the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is well borne out in the context of the facts of the case before the Division Bench and cannot be faulted on any score. In our view therefore the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment is well borne out in the context of the facts of the case before the Division Bench and cannot be faulted on any score. ( 13 ) WE may in this connection refer to another decision of this court in the case of Mahijibhai Lakabhai v. State of Gujarat 1981 Criminal Law Journal (sic) Reporter 185. There M. K. Shah J. as a single Judge followed the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in the Case of Jonsing Gangasing Rajput (1979 Cri. Law Journal (sic) Reporter (supra ). In Mahijibhais Case (supra) one Dr. Arvind K. Patel had drawn sample of blood from the accused but the seal affixed on the phial in which blood was collected was of S. S. G. Hospital M. L. D. Baroda. It is in these circumstances that M. K. Shah J. held that the affixing seal of the S. S. G. Hospital M. L. D. Baroda and not the seal of the registered medical practitioner who had collected the blood was serious infirmity showing that the procedure of mandatory nature as prescribed by rule 4 (1) was not followed. As this decision falls in line with and follows the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in 1979 Cr. L. J. (sic) Reporter (supra) which we have approved it must be held that this later decision of the learned Single Judge in Mahijibhais case (supra) is also unexceptionable. ( 14 ) WE may now turn to a later judgment of this court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Walter Paul Master 1982 Criminal Law Journal (sic) Reporter 187 (1942 Cri. L. J. 1324 ). The Division Bench consisting of A. M. Ahmadi and V. V. Bedarkar JJ had an occasion to consider this very question. V. V. Bedarkar J. speaking for the Division Bench noted the facts of the case in para 2 of the report to the effect that the accused was taken to the 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. Dr. Joshipura was examined before the trial court. (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. Dr. Joshipura was examined before the trial court. She stated in her examination-in-chief that the phial after having been vigorously shaken was labelled and sealed with the seal impression of Government of Gujarat. It was also observed that though Dr. Joshipura came with a case that she had used the seal impression of Government of Gujarat no question was put to her as to whether that was her official seal. It was further observed that Dr. Joshipura was a medical officer attached to the Civil Hospital and therefore she was not a private registered medical practitioner who would be required to use a monogram. As she was the medical officer in Government Civil Hospital she would naturally use the official seal. It has been further observed that so far as the word seal is concerned it requires to be the official seal of the registered medical practitionr 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. The eventuality of the 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 no official seal. It has been further observed that for the official seal is there then the question of using her own monogram which is attempted to be mentioned as a seal before the bench would not arise for Miss Joshipura. So such an argument that even in case of official seal it 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 be 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. It has been further observed:it has been specifically argued that the seal Government of Gujarat is an official seal of the medical officer. If that is attempted to be 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. It has been further observed: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 has applied the seal in consonance with rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules and the seal 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 Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. THEREAFTER it has been further observed having noted the ratio of the decision in Mahijibhais case (supra) that So far as the medical officer in that case is concerned there is no question of any seat but the requirement of the monogram of a particular registered medical practitioner is necessary but if the registered medical practitioner uses official seal then the question of 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. SO far as the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench is concerned we must at once state that on the facts as found before the Division Bench the seal of Government of Gujarat as utilised by Do Joshipura who collected the blood sample was not challenged to be not the official seal of the doctor. On the contrary it was assumed that Government of Gujarat was the official seal of the doctor who had extracted blood. IN these circumstances on facts requirements of rule 4 (1) were satisfied. To that extent no exception can be taken to the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. On the contrary it was assumed that Government of Gujarat was the official seal of the doctor who had extracted blood. IN these circumstances on facts requirements of rule 4 (1) were satisfied. To that extent no exception can be taken to the ratio of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. However with respect we do not agree with the observations of the Division Bench as found in para 18 of the report to the following effect :. . 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 no official seal. It is difficult for us to visualise how the concerned hospital would not have any official seal. As we have noted earlier authorised medical practitioners who are entitled to collect blood for the purpose of analysis as per Section 129 would be either medical practitioners in charge of the hospital or dispensary or serving therein. For such hospital official seal would obviously be there. But for a registered medical practitioner who is not in charge of such hospital or dispensary there would be no question of his utilising official seal of the hospital as his or her official seal. In that case he can have his own personal seal which would be treated as his official seal or he can utilise his monogram. It is not as if that the medical officer not in charge of the hospital cannot have his own personal official seal as assumed by the Division Bench. Similarly it is not possible for us with respect to fall in line with the following observations is the Division Bench in para 18 of the report:. . 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. Similarly it is not possible for us with respect to fall in line with the following observations is the Division Bench in para 18 of the report:. . 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 it must contain the monogram of the registeed 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 be imported then it would be doing violence to the language of rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules. . . AS we have already shown earlier in detail the question of monogram may still surivive even if there is an official seal available to the concerned registered medical practitioner as his own seal as use of disjunctive conjuction or used between the expressions official seal and monogram clearly indicates that it is wen to the concerned registered medical practitioner either to utilise the official seal if any or to utilise his own monogram. It is not as if that the monogram is to be utilised only in case the official seal is not available. With respect the Division Bench by the aforesaid process of reasoning has practically reduced dis-junctive conjunction or to in the alternative meaning thereby that instead of words official seal or monogram on the interpretation placed by the Division Bench the phrase would read official seal or failing which monogram. With reference it is not possible to interpret the phrase in that manner. It is also equally not possible for us to agree with the observations found in para 19 of the report to the following effect-SO far as the medical officer in that case is concerned there is no question of any seat 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 of 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 Ar. The would mean that even if the medical practitioner has affixed his official seal or the seal of the 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. WITH respect it mst be observed that the Division Bench has assumed that wherever there is availability of official seal monogram cannot be restored to at all. On the clear language of Rule 4 affixing of official seal of the concerned medical officer or his monogram is permitted. Use of either of the two would be good enough. It is not as if that if official seal is not available or not existing then only resort to monogram can be had. In fact there is complete play available to the concerned registered medical practitioner extracting blood either to utilise the official seal if available or not to utilise it even if available and affix instead his own monogram on the phial. In either case there would be due compliance with rule 4 (1 ). With respect therefore it is not possible for us to approve that part of the reasoning of the Division Bench when it holds that use of monogram can be resorted to only if the official seal is not available. ( 15 ) BEFORE parting with consideration of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment we may also mention that the concerned four Government notifications issued from time to time under Section 129-A (1) and (4) and their import was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. In these circumstances it was assumed that the registered medical practitioner who is not attached in his official capacity to any hospital can also collect blood from the accused under Section 129-A (1 ). In the light of the relevant Government notification to which we have made a detailed reference earlier it is impossible to subscribe to the view that even private medical pactitioner can collect blood as authorised medical practitioner under Section 129-A (1) or (4 ). In para 17 of the report it has been observed that 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. No details of these categories are given in the said report. In para 17 of the report it has been observed that 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. No details of these categories are given in the said report. However the four notifications to which we have made a reference earlier indicate limited classes of registered medical practitioners who can act as authorised registered medical practitioners for the purpose of Section 129-A and that they would all be attached either to Government hospitals or dispensaries or municipal or panchayat hospitals or dispensaries being doctors in charge or serving therein. ( 16 ) BEFORE closing the discussion we may also refer to one judgment of this court in the case of Karansing v. State A. I. R. 1967 Guj. 219 J. B. Metha J. in that case had an occasion to consider the requirements of rule 4 (1) of the rules. In the case before the learned Single Judge sample phial was sent to the chemical analyser by the investigating officer and not by the doctor. In these circumstances it was held that the report of the chemical analyser was not evidence of concentration of blood. J. B. Mehta J. After having noticed various requirements of rule 4 (1) made the following observations in connection with the requirements of the said rule-THESE rules which are made for prescribing the manner of collection and forwarding of the blood. They secure that the blood which has been collected by an independent doctor is sent under his seal either by post or with a special messenger to the testing officer so as to reach him within seven days from the date of his collection. The method for collection has been also carefully laid down and provision is made for a phial containing anticoagulant and preservative so that the blood sample may be properly preserved and there may be no deterioration. A further safeguard is kept in sub-clause (2) that not only the phial is to be sent by post or a special messenger but the same is to be accompanied by a forwarding letter in the prescribed form B which shall bear a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial of the sample blood. A further safeguard is kept in sub-clause (2) that not only the phial is to be sent by post or a special messenger but the same is to be accompanied by a forwarding letter in the prescribed form B which shall bear a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial of the sample blood. An additional safeguard is provided in rule 5 that after the test is carried out the testing officer has to send a certificate in form C to the registered medical practitioner who shall forward the original copy to the concerned police officer or the prohibition officer. The rules which provide for the proper phial containing anticoagulant and preservative are rules made with a view to secure that the sample does not deteriorate. Similarly the rules for forwarding either by post or by a special messenger of sample phial along with the forwarding letter which would bear the fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial of the sample blood are clearly made with a view to secure that no tampering might be done. That is why the entire thing is handed over to the doctor and is not left to the investigating Officer. THESE observations clearly flow from the statutory requirements of Rule 4 (1 ). However they do not touch upon the question which has been posed for our consideration in the present case and hence we do not dilate on them any further. ( 17 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion we answer the question posed for our consideration by holding that if the concerned authorised registered medical practitioner who draws blood sample is in charge of the concerned hospital or dispensary he can utilise the official seal of such hospital or dispensary for the purpose of affixing it on the sealed phial which would be his official seal as doctor in charge of the hospital or dispensary or he can utilise his own monogram instead of using such official seal. If he is not in charge of such hospital or dispensary he may either utilise his own personal seal which would be his official seal or failing which or despite such seal being available he can use his own monogram. All the aforesaid exercises would squarely answer the requirements of Rule 4 (1) of the rules. If he is not in charge of such hospital or dispensary he may either utilise his own personal seal which would be his official seal or failing which or despite such seal being available he can use his own monogram. All the aforesaid exercises would squarely answer the requirements of Rule 4 (1) of the rules. ( 18 ) IN the light of the aforesaid decision on the question referred for our consideration we have to examine the case of the applicant in the present revision application. As the revision application is referred to us as a whole we proceed to deal with the same on merits instead of referring it back to the learned Single Judge. On the facts of this case it is found that when the appellant accused was produced before the medical officer Kheralu he was examined by him and blood from his vein was extracted for the purpose of analysis. Dr. K. J. Dave was examined before the trial court to show how the requirements of Rule 4 (1) were complied with by him. He stated in his deposition that on 30-11-1977 the accused was brought to him by the police constable buckle No. 1664 and at that time he had observed the following physical features: .