( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2823 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2822 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Bhausaheb Vyankatrao Patil .. Respondent Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for applicant/State. Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 19.10.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned A.P.P. and learned advocate for the respondent. 2. The delay in filing of the appeal is of 21 days. The explanation for the delay is that the proposal for the ( 2 ) appeal was moved to the Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad. It took time for taking administrative decision and processing of the relevant papers. The delay is unintentional. The delay appears to be of marginal nature and therefore it is condoned by allowing the application. 3. So far as application seeking leave to file is concerned, it appears that the respondent was found in drunken condition on 28th June, 2007. He was allegedly found lying on road in front of Mini Market, Latur at about 10 a.m. He is a police constable. He was rushed to the Civil Hospital for clinical examination. The Medical Officer noticed that the respondent had consumed alcoholic composition, though he was not under influence. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent for offence under Section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The reason for acquittal is that Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination And Blood Test), Rules, 1959, was breached. The issue requires consideration in as much as it involves conduct of a public servant and the question whether compliance of the rule is mandatory or directory. ( 3 ) 4. Leave granted to file appeal. Appeal admitted. Mr. R.K. Ashtekar waives notice for sole respondent. Hence, no further action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. is necessary. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/cria2823.10