1. Common questions of law and fact arise in all these three revision petitions and hence, they are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. In Criminal Revision Application No. 464 of 1966, petitioner Chhaganji was prosecuted for offences punishable under S.85(1) (3) and 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 , which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.

3. The prosecution story was that on 13th March, 1966 at about 1-30 p.m. the petitioner was found drunk near the hospital in a public place in Deesa town, district Banaskantha and he had also consumed liquor without a pass or permit. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mr. N. G. Butala, in that Criminal Case No. 380, found that the petitioner was not found under the influence of drink. He was not found intoxicated. He, therefore, acquitted him of the offence under S.85(1) (3) of the Act. He further found that the petitioner had consumed liquor without pass or permit. In view of that finding of his, he convicted him of an offence punishable under S. 66(1)(b) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one and a