from this he companycluded that the respondent had companysumed some alcoholic substance but was number under the influence of liquor.
dadlani prabhu rochiram p. w. who has deposed that the respondent was smelling of liquor but his speech behaviour gait coordination and memory were numbermal.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 17 1960 of the bombay s high companyrt in criminal appeal number 1235 of 1960.
the respondent was arrested by police companystable laxman sabaji on august 8 1959 at 8 15 p.m. on the ground that he was smelling of liquor and bad therefore companytravened the provisions of the act.
it has been held by bavdekar and chainani jj.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 58 of 1961.
the respondent in his examination under s. 342 stated question what do you wish to say with reference to the evidence given and recorded against you?
in cross examination he stated that tincture neem would produce blood concentration of 0.146 m v of ethyl alcohol.
the respondent was taken to the hospital where he was examined by dr.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this appeal by special leave against the decision of the high companyrt of bombay dismissing the states appeal against the acquittal of the respondent arises out of proceedings under s. 66 1 b of the bombay prohibition act 1949 act25 of 1949 as amended hereinafter called the act.
the respondent did number appear.
i had taken 6 ounces of neem as i am used to it.
february 16.
h. dhebar for the appellant.
answer i have number companysumed prohibited alcohol.
