( 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