Chainani, C.J.

1. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are that on the evening of 8th December 1960 the accused was arrested as he was suspected to have consumed alcohol. He was sent to the hospital for examination. The medical officer, who examined him, issued a certificate Exh. 3, in which he has stated that the breath of the accused smelt of liquor, that his pupils were dilated, that his eyes were congested and that he had consumed liquor. The medical officer also collected some blood from the body of the accused and sent it to the Chemical Analyser for examina tion. On 1-4-1961 the Chemical Analyser issued a certi ficate, that the blood contained 0.292 per cent. W/V of ethyl alcohol. The accused was then prosecuted on the charge of consuming liquor and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 66 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In order to prove that the accused had consumed prohibited liquor, the prosecution relied on Sub-section (2) ot Section 66 of the Act, which states that, where in any trial of an offence for the consumption of an intoxicant, it is alleged that the accused person consumed liquor, and it is proved that the concentration of alcoh