Statutory presumption from proved blood-alcohol concentration was not rebutted, so conviction for drunken incapacity was sustained.

A proved blood-alcohol concentration triggered the statutory presumption under the Bombay Prohibition Act, shifting the burden to the accused to displace the inference of consumption of intoxicant and being drunk and incapable of caring for himself. The defence explanation of an overdose of Javerian Jivan mixture was rejected because the account was inconsistent, did not explain the companion's unconscious state, and relied on a bottle produced only at trial. The materials were insufficient to rebut the mandatory presumption, so the conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the proved blood-alcohol concentration so as to avoid conviction for consumption of intoxicant and being drunk and incapable of taking care of himself.

Analysis: The proved alcohol content in the appellant's blood attracted the statutory burden under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The defence that he had taken an overdose of Javerian Jivan mixture was not accepted because the taxi driver's version and the appellant's own statement were inconsistent, neither explained the unconscious state of the companion who was with him, and the alleged bottle was produced only at trial as an afterthought. The materials relied upon did not amount to proof sufficient to displace the mandatory presumption.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to rebut the presumption and the conviction was sustained.

---