C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed against an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, palitana on 27/11/1991, in Summary Case No. 1218 of 1990 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, on 24/12/1992, in criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1991. By the impugned orders, the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and was ordered to undergo s. I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 150. 00 in default of payment of fine, s. I. for 15 days more. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 26/02/1990, at about 6 p. m. the petitioner, who was serving as police constable, was found drunk at a public place known as Bhairavpura Chowk in Palitana City. He was, therefore, arrested for committing offences punishable under Sec. 66 (1) (b) read with Sec. 85 (1) (3) of the Act. The petitioner did not plead guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 27/11/1991, held that it was proved by the prosecution that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the act and was convicted as mentioned above. Regarding the offence punishable under sec. 85 (1) (3) of the Act, however, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that it was not proved that the petitioner was found drunk at a public place and was behaving in a disorderly manner under the influence of alcohol. The learned magistrate was, therefore, pleased to acquit the accused on the said charge. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by an order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the appellate Court. It is against the said order that the present petition is filed. The petition was admitted by this court on 1-1-1993. It is called out for final hearing today. ( 4 ) MR. M. J. Dagli, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised a number of contentions. He submitted that the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Testing) Rules, 1959, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) have not been complied with. It is called out for final hearing today. ( 4 ) MR. M. J. Dagli, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised a number of contentions. He submitted that the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Testing) Rules, 1959, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) have not been complied with. It was argued that as required by Rule 4 (2), the sample was not sent so as to reach the testing officer "within 7 days" from the date of the collection of blood. Hence, the trial was vitiated and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal. It was also submitted that the doctor has not followed the procedure before collection of blood of the petitioner. He had not used his personal seal as required by the Rules and as per the decision of this court. It was also contended that though by the amendment in the Rules in the year 1985, new Form-B was prescribed, instead of using new form old one was used by the doctor which was contrary to law. It was, finally submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner had committed an offence, considering the fact that the petitioner was in Government service, was under suspension and had to maintain his wife and children substantive sentence may not be imposed on him which may adversely affect him as well as his family members. Instead, amount of fine may be enhanced so that he may not lose service and may be able to support his family. ( 5 ) MR. K. P. Raval, learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below. He submitted that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, both the Courts held that mandatory provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules have been followed and convicted the petitioner. On question of sentence, he submitted that the petitioner is a member of police force. One of the duties of a member of police force is to implement the prohibition policy of the state and to see that the provisions of the Act are observed. In the instant case, the petitioner himself committed breach thereof and consumed alcohol. The legislature has provided minimum imprisonment of three months which had been imposed on him. One of the duties of a member of police force is to implement the prohibition policy of the state and to see that the provisions of the Act are observed. In the instant case, the petitioner himself committed breach thereof and consumed alcohol. The legislature has provided minimum imprisonment of three months which had been imposed on him. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Courts below have committed any illegality in convicting and/or punishing the accused which requires to be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ( 6 ) HAVING gone through the record as well as the orders passed by the Courts below and considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and the decisions to which my attention was drawn by the learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. Regarding observance of mandatory provisions of Rules 3 and 4, it is clear that after considering the deposition of PW 1, Dr. Rameshchandra Vishvanath rajguru, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Palitana, both the Courts held that pw 1 was on duty on 20/02/1990. At about 7-30 p. m. the petitioner-police constable was brought before him with Police Yadi in connection with consumption of alcohol. In examination-in-chief PW 1 stated that he was aware of the Rules for collection of blood in such cases and in accordance with those Rules, he collected blood, put in a syringe and sent for chemical analysis by applying an official seal in the prescribed form. In cross-examination, he admitted that on that day, three medical officers and one doctor were also on duty. He asserted that "b" Form was sent after putting necessary details therein. He further stated that he was serving as a medical officer since about nine years and was aware that if the provisions of the Rules were not complied with, there could be change in the result regarding consumption of alcohol. It was put to him that necessary details were only filled in Form-B without following proper procedure but the suggestion was denied by him. He also denied that he was not knowing the Rules regarding taking of blood sample. It was put to him that necessary details were only filled in Form-B without following proper procedure but the suggestion was denied by him. He also denied that he was not knowing the Rules regarding taking of blood sample. As held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Amarsinh Chhotabhai, 1976 glr 96 , the procedural requirement mentioned in Rules 3 and 4 are mandatory in nature and they must be complied with. It is, however, not necessary that every word stated in the Rules should be enumerated by a medical officer before the Court. In the instant case, the doctor has asserted that he has followed the procedural requirements of the Rules. Nothing fruitful was taken out in cross-examination of the witness. Though bald assertion was made that he had not followed the Rules and Form-B was filled in without following proper procedure, no material whatsoever was produced from which it can be said there was non-compliance with the Rules. Averments and allegations were denied and it was held by both the Courts that the doctor had followed the provisions of Rules 3 and 4. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding of fact and hence, that finding is required to be affirmed and is accordingly affirmed. ( 7 ) REGARDING seal on the sample, my attention was drawn by Mr. Dagli, learned counsel for the petitioner to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chamanbhai gangaram Vankar v. State of Gujarat, 1984 GLH 438 (FB ). It was held by the Full bench in the said decision that the doctor was required to use his personal seal for affixing on phial and if there is failure on his part in doing so, it cannot be said that he has followed the procedure laid down in Rule 4. Mr. Dagli also submitted that there were three other doctors and one Suprerintendent on duty on that day. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the Medical Officer concerned to put his personal seal on phial. I am unable to accept the argument of Mr. Dagli. Mr. Dagli also submitted that there were three other doctors and one Suprerintendent on duty on that day. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the Medical Officer concerned to put his personal seal on phial. I am unable to accept the argument of Mr. Dagli. After considering the relevant provisions of the Act as also various decisions, the Full bench laid down the following principles : (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; and (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 be. ( 8 ) FROM the above decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that (i) if the doctor is on duty, he can use official seal; (ii) if he is not on duty, he can use his personal seal; and (iii) if he is on duty, over and above official seal, he can also use his own monogram for affixing it on the sealed phial. Since PW 1 was on duty on that day, he could have used his official seal and he actually used it. The fact that some other doctors were also on duty, in my opinion, does not prohibit PW 1 from using his official seal. The contention, therefore, cannot be upheld. Since PW 1 was on duty on that day, he could have used his official seal and he actually used it. The fact that some other doctors were also on duty, in my opinion, does not prohibit PW 1 from using his official seal. The contention, therefore, cannot be upheld. ( 9 ) REGARDING collection of blood and sending it to Chemical Analyser, it was contended that as per the evidence of PW 1 the blood of the petitioner was collected by him on 26/02/1990 and it reached the office of the Chemical Analyser on 5/03/1990. According to Mr. Dagli, the prescribed period of seven days was over by then inasmuch as the sample reached the office of the Chemical Analyser on the eighth day. At the first blush, the argument appears to be attractive, but on close secrutiny, I do not find any substance in it. Section 10 of the Bombay General clauses Act, 1904 enacts that whenever any action is required to be taken within a particular period, the first in a series of days should be excluded. A similar question arose before this Court in State of Gujarat v. Chandubhai Parmar, 1976 GLR 718 . That case was also under the Bombay Prohibition Act. In Chandubhai Parmars case, (supra) blood was collected on 26/10/1973. It was received by Chemical analyser on 2/11/1973, i. e. , on the eighth day. It was contended by the accused that since the prescribed period of seven days was over, conviction could not have been recorded because of the non-observance of the provisions of Rule 4 (2 ). Relying Sec. 10 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, it was held by this Court that in calculating the period of seven days, the date on which the blood was collected was required to be excluded, and it could not be said that the prescribed period of seven days was over on 2/11/1973. The sample blood was, in these circumstances, must be held to have been received by the Chemical Analyser on the seventh day and, therefore, it was in accordance with law. In my opinion, the ratio laid down in Chandubhai Parmars case (supra) applies to the facts of the present case also. Hence, even that contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner has no force and must be rejected. ( 10 ) ABOUT form, Mr. In my opinion, the ratio laid down in Chandubhai Parmars case (supra) applies to the facts of the present case also. Hence, even that contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner has no force and must be rejected. ( 10 ) ABOUT form, Mr. Dagli could not point out the difference between an old form and a new form as prescribed in the year 1985 and hence if an old form is sent instead of new form, it does not vitiate the trial. In any case, the petitioner could not point out anything to show that prejudice was caused to him by sending an old form instead of new form. This contention also, therefore, cannot be upheld. ( 11 ) REGARDING sentence, I could not persuade myself to take more liberal view than the one taken by the Courts below. Section 66 (1) of the Act provides that whoever in contravention of the provisions of the Act consumes alcohol, shall on conviction be punished for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which may extend at one thousand rupees. Proviso to clause (i) of sub-sec. (1), of Sec. 66 however, enacts that "in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than three months and fine shall not be less than five hundred rulees". In the instant case, the trial Court awarded the minimum sentence of three months and imposed fine of Rs. 150. 00 only and the said order was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. Now, apart from the fact that there are no "special and adequate" reasons to the contrary, the petitioner is a member of police force. It is his duty to see that public at large observe prohibition. Instead of preventing members of public from consuming alcohol, the accused himself committed an offence. It is true that an order of imprisonment of substantive sentence may adversely affect the petitioner and also to his family members but, then, the provisions of law cannot, on that ground, be ignored or disregarded. When the Legislature has provided minimum sentence to all offenders, the petitioner who is a member of disciplined force, cannot contend that he should be dealt with leniently and in his case, legislative mandate should be overlooked. When the Legislature has provided minimum sentence to all offenders, the petitioner who is a member of disciplined force, cannot contend that he should be dealt with leniently and in his case, legislative mandate should be overlooked. In my considered view, adverse effect on the service of the petitioner or consequences ensue there-from cannot be said to be "special and adequate" reasons so as to reduce the sentence from the minumum prescribed by law. Hence, even that submission also cannot be accepted. In view of the following reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere with conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below and the revision application is required to be dismissed and the same in accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Time to surrender is granted upto 31/12/1994. .