K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) ). This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 23/04/1981, rendered in Summary Case No. 398/79 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Chanasma, wherein the respondent-accused who came to be tried for the offence punishable under Sections 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was at the end of the trial, ordered to be acquitted. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 27th october 1978, at 21. 11. 15 hours, P. S. I. Rahe- matkhan Chandkhan Pathan, who was at village suasar, received an intimation that the respondent-accused under the influence of drink was misbehaving in a public place. Thereupon he went there alongwith Panchas and found the accused in a drunken condition. Thereafter the accused was taken to Medical Officer Shri bhogilal Chunilal Pandya, who examined him on the very day at 23. 00 hours. On the basis of these facts, ultimately the accused came to be charge-sheeted to stand the trial before the trial court. ( 3 ) AT the trial, the accused pleaded not quilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses, viz. (1) P. W. I. Ra- hematkhan Chandkhan Pathan, Ex. 7 and (2) p. W. 2 Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya, Ex. 10. Over and above, the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon the F. I. A. Ex. 8 as well as the medical certificate at Ex. 11 and the report of the Chemical Analyser at Ex. 12. After duly appreciating the prosecution evidence, the trial court by its judgment and order dated 23/04/1981 acquitted the accused and hence the present acquittal appeal. ( 4 ) MR. D. K. Trivedi, learned Addl. P. P. while challenging the impugned order of acquittal has taken me through the material evidence and the reasons for acquittal given by the trial court. ( 5 ) NOW this appeal can be disposed of shortly on the ground that the Rule 4 of the bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and blood Test) Rules, 1959, which is a mandatory provision, has not been duly complied with. The said Rule 4 reads as under:"4 (1) Manner or collection and forwarding of blood: the registered medical practitioner shall use a syringe for the collection of the blood of the person produced before him under Rule 3. The said Rule 4 reads as under:"4 (1) Manner or collection and forwarding of blood: 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 aforesiad purpose. He shall clean with sterilised water and wash the skin surface of that part of such persons body from 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 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. (2) The sample blood collected in the phial in the manner stated in sub-rule (1) shall be forwarded 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 the phial of the sample blood. " ( 6 ) NOW in this case, the alleged offence took place on 27/10/1978 at 21. 15 hours and thereafter the P. S. I. Mr. Pathan had taken the accused to the Medical Officer Bhogilal Chunilal pandya, P. W. 2, who examined him on the very day at 23. 00 hours and took his sample of the blood in the manner as provided by Rule 4 (1) of the said Rules, for the purpose of sending it to the Chemical Analyser. It is to be noted that though the sample of the blood came to be collected on 27/10/1978, the same was sent to the Chemical Analyser on 28/10/1978, which was received by the Chemical Analyser on 10/11/1978 by Regd. Post. It is to be noted that though the sample of the blood came to be collected on 27/10/1978, the same was sent to the Chemical Analyser on 28/10/1978, which was received by the Chemical Analyser on 10/11/1978 by Regd. Post. This clearly shows that the sample of the blood has not reached the Chemical Analyser within 7 days of its collection as provided in Rule 4 (2) of the Rules. From the evidence of the said Medical officer, it is not clear whether the said sample was accompanied by a forwarding letter in Form- b being a fascimile of the seal or monogram used for sealing the phial of the sample blood of the accused. Under the circumstances, provisions of rule 4 (1) and (2) of the said Rules, which are mandatory, are violated. These two patent infirmities are fatal to the prosecution. When faced with this situation, Mr. Trivedi, learned A. P. P. was unable to press this acquittal appeal any further. ( 7 ) IN the result, this appeal fails and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is confirmed. .