((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3743 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Pandurang Baburao Pawar Respondent Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th January 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the applicant. This is an application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under sections 85(1)(2), 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 as well as section 510 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the prosecution is that the complainant who is the Police Constable was on patrolling duty on 5th March 2007 at about 3.30 a.m.. The complainant along with the staff visited Burondi Naka Check Post. At that time they found that the respondent-accused who was also a Police Constable was sleeping. The case ((-2-)) of the complainant is that his mouth was smelling of alcohol and he appeared to be under the influence of liquor. It is stated that when a Police Inspector questioned him, the respondent behaved in mannerless and rash manner. 2. The order of acquittal is mainly on the ground that the oral evidence of the medical officer and the medical certificate at exhibit-16 were inconsistent. It is pointed out that the medical certificate does not bear the thumb impression of the respondent or identification marks. It is observed that the medical officer could not disclose the manner in which the blood samples of the respondent were taken. 3. I have heard learned APP.. I have perused the record and proceedings of the case. A perusal of the medical certificate shows that at the place designated for the signature of the person who is examined medically, there is neither a thumb impression nor a signature of the respondent. Moreover, identification marks of the person concerned have not been mentioned. The medical officer who was ((-3-)) examined to prove the said certificate at Exhibit-16, in the examination in chief, has stated that he had taken thumb impression of the accused on the medical certificate at exhibit-16. He stated that he had taken the blood sample of the respondent. A perusal of the certificate at Exhibit-16 shows that there is neither a thumb impression nor signature of the respondent-accused. Therefore, a serious doubt is created whether exhibit 16 is the certificate of the respondent-accused inasmuch as according to the medical officer, he had taken thumb impression of the respondent on the medical certificate. It is true that the report of the chemical analyser at exhibit-17 supports the prosecution. But the evidence of the medical officer who allegedly had drawn the blood sample becomes doubtful in view of the aforesaid major discrepancy. 4. Therefore, a doubt was created about the genuineness of the prosecution case and accordingly the order of acquittal has been passed. The view taken by the learned Trial Judge is certainly a possible view. No case for review is made out. Therefore, the review is dismissed. ((-4-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)