( 1 ) HIS Lordship after discussing the evidence held that there was sufficient acceptable evidence to convict the accused in respect of the charge against him under sec. 85 (1) (i) and sec. 85 (1) (iii) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. His Lordship further stated:it was then contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the learned Magistrate was in error when he held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the offence under section 66 (1) (b) occurred within his territorial jurisdiction. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that since the accused was found in a public place in Thakardavas in such a position that he was not able to take care of himself we must assume that he must have consumed prohibited liquor at that very place that is to say within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate. He also contended that the learned trial Magistrate could have tried the accused and convicted him under sec. 66 (1) (b) by reason of the provisions of sections 179 180 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) NOW section 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act provides that:whoever in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any rule etc. . . . . . consumes uses etc. . . . . . any intoxicant shall on conviction be punished etc. . . Sub-section (2) of section 66 contains a rule as to proof and also a presumption which is contained in mandatory terms. That sub-section provides that: where in any trial of an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) for the consumption of an intoxicant it is alleged that the accused person consumed liquor and it is proved that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused person is not less than 0 05 percent weight in volume then the burden of proving that the liquor consumed was a medicinal or toilet preparation. . . . . . . . . containing alcohol the consumption of which is not in contravention of the Act or any rules regulations or orders made thereunder shall be upon the accused person. . . .

( 3 ) THE sub-section enjoins upon the Court in the absence of such proof to presume the contrary. Under sub-section (2) of section 66 therefore the burden that the liquor was not prohibited intoxicant has been thrown upon the accused. It was however not the case of the accused that what was drunk or consumed by him was not prohibited liquor and that what he had consumed was a medicinal or a toilet preparation containing alcohol. His case in fact was that he was in his house when the police raided the locality and that he had not drunk or consumed any liquor at all. Now it is fairly clear that sub-section (1) (b) of section 66 makes the act of consumption of an intoxicant an offence. The sub-section uses the word consumes which means that the act of drinking or consuming an intoxicant has been made an offence. The Legislature has not used the words having been found to have used or consumed. Therefore the offence under section 66 (1) (b) is complete when a person consumes prohibited intoxicant. The act does not define the word consume and therefore we must attribute to the word consume its literary dictionary meaning. According to Websters New World Dictionary 1956 edition the word consume means to drink or eat up devour. Lord Hawart C. J. while dealing with the word consume in section 4 of the Licensing Act 1921 in Caldwell v. Jones 1923 (2) 0. B. 309 also has observed that the word consume must be read in its natural and ordinary sense and on such a meaning held in the light of the provisions of section 4 of the Licensing Act that that section prohibited except during the permitted hours and subject to the specific exceptions provided for by the Act the consumption on licensed premises of any intoxicant liquor even though that liquor might not have been sold or supplied on those premises but was brought into the premises by the person consuming it there. When the word consume thus is given its dictionary meaning it would me