( 1 ) THE appellant who has been convicted for the offence of being found drunk under sec. 66 (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate 7 Court. Ahmedabad on April 11 1968 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Rules have been complied with. On September 12 1967 at about 3-15 a. m. when the appellant was in Manekchowk he was placed under arrest for being found drunk without being in possession of a permit for consuming liquor. P. W. 1 Kalekhan Sherkhan testified that upon receiving some information when he was on duty at about 3-15 a. m. he had proceeded to Manekchowk and had found the appellant in a drunken condition. Panchas were called the Panchnama was made and the appellant was sent to the Civil Hospital for being examined by a doctor. In the present case no doctor has been examined to show as to what he did when the appellant was brought to him. The certificate of the doctor is produced at Exh. 5 but it does not throw any light on the question as to what