· ·Cd as alcohol of prohibited strenath or the competence of the Excise A Inspector to alvo his conclusion on the 1tronath of IClll adopted by him. Apia, no dofeoce evidence was led to iodlcato that the liqUid · cou1d be anythlna else. Theso considoratlon1 would bo 1ulftclent to disposo off tho polntl raised on behalf of the appellant In tho case boforo us. We may, however, observe that wo aaree with the High Court that tho proposition contained in Boosenna's case· (supra) B must be confined to its own facts. We find that the Excise Inspector who had deposed, at the very ·outset of his evidence, that he had put in 21 years service as Excise Inspector and had tested lacs of samples o! liquor and illicit liquor. As already pointed out, the competence of C. D. Misra to test the composition and strenath of th~ liquid under consideration was not C queatloned at all. We, therllfore,. think that this particular Excise Inspector could be treated as an expert within the mcanlna of Section 4S of the Evidence At. Tho Exci10 Inspector had, in addition to employing the 1nicllina teat, used all the other tests he could roasonably adopt. If hit competence to a!vo his opinion or tho 1umclcncy of the testl adopted by him had been questioned in tho Trial Court, tho ·proseD cution woUid have been in a position to lead more evidence on those qucatlons. We also .find that tho objects recovered from tho possc11ion of the appellant almost proclaim the naturo of his actlvltr and of the liquid which could be in his possession. On the facts and circumstances of this case, neither Boosenntis case nor any other cas would, we think, help the appellant. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant E should surrender to his bail and serve out the sentence.
