( 1 ) THE short and interesting question which arises in ibis Criminal Revision Application is as regards the weight to be attached to a report of a Chemical Examiner when the report is tendered as evidence under sec. 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without summoning and examining the Chemical Examiner as to the subject matter of the report. The accused was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Broach for the offence of consuming liquor under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to by me as the Act ). The charge against the accused was that on 16 December 1959 at about out 5-45 P. M. he was found on a public road having consumed liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Act. A sample of the blood of the accused was taken by the police and submitted to the Chemical Examiner to the Government for determining the concentration of alcohol in the blood. Though the sample of the blood was taken on 16/12/1959 the same was not submitted to the Chemical Examiner until 8/01/1960. It is not known on what precise date the Chemical Examiner tested the sample of the blood. but a report was submitted by the Chemical Examiner to the police on 14/01/1960 stating the opinion of the Chemical Examiner that the concentration of alcohol in the sample of the blood was 0. 191 per cent. The factual data on the basis of which the opinion was arrived at by the Chemical Examiner were not mentioned in the report nor did the report contain any grounds or reasons which had induced the Chemical Examiner to form the opinion. At the trial the prosecution tendered the report as evidence under sec. 510 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate did not think it necessary to summon and examine the Chemical Examiner as to the subject matter of the report and received the report in evidence under sec. 510 (1 ). The accused also did not apply to the learned Magistrate under sec. 510 (2) to summon and examine the Chemical Examiner as to the subject matter of the report. Relying on the report the prosecution contended that it was proved That the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused was 0. 191 per cent and that having regard to sec. 66 (2) of the Act the burden of proving that the liquor consumed was a medicinal or a toilet preparation or an anti-septic solution or a flavouring extract essence or syrup containing alcohol the consumption of which was not in-contravention of the Act or any Rules Regulations or Orders made thereunder was upon the accused and that since the accused had failed to discharge such burden the learned Magistrate was bound to presume that the accused had consumed liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rules Regulations or Orders made under the Act. The learned Magistrate accepted this contention of the prosecution and held on the basis of the report that it was proved by the prosecution that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused was 6. 191 per cent and that the burden of proving that he had consumed non-prohibited liquor was therefore on the accused. The case of the accused was that he had consumed waterbury compound which is a medicinal preparation containing alcohol. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the story of the accused and held that the accused had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the liquor consumed by him was non-prohibited liquor and the Court was therefore entitled to presume that the accused had consumed liquor in contravention of the provisions if the Act or any Rules Regulations or Orders made under the Act. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the accused of the offence under sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months arid to pay fine of Rs. 1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further two months.

( 2 ) THE accused preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against h