U L. Bhat, C.J. - On 7.7. 1980 the revision petitioner was found in possession of 6 (six) bottles of India made foreign liquor which were duly seized by PW1, Assistant Inspector of Excise in the presence of PWs 2 and 3. Exhibit 1 is the seizure list. In due course a report was submitted to the Court for an offence under section 4 of the Assam Liquor Prohibition Act, 1952 (for short `the Act'). The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty and stated that the bottles were found in a bag in the hotel and not from his custody. The trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision. 2. Section 3 of the Act states, inter alia, that no person shall possess liquor. `Liquor' is defined in section 2 (3) of the Act thus : "Liquor" means any intoxicating liquor and includes all liquid consiting of or containing alcohol, also tari and pachwai in any from and any substance which the State Government may, by notification, declare to be liquor for the purposes of this Act. Explanation. - "Tari" in an unfermented stage and liquor containing 5 per cent alcohol are exempted from the operation of this Act." Liquor means any intoxicating liquor. The expression includes all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol. It also includes tari and pachwai in any form besides and substance duly notified by the Government. However, `tari' in an unfermented stage and liquor containing 5 percent alcohol are exempted from the operation of this Act. 3. The only point urged by the teamed counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is no legal or acceptable evidence to show that the contents of the bottles allegedly seized from the revision petitioner contend any intoxicating liquor or liquor containing more than 5 per cent alcohol. Learned counsel placing reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 1979 contended that without the Chemical Analyst's report, conviction could not have been entered. 4. The prosecution case in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 1979 was that the accused was found in illegal possession of four bottles of wine (Bhutanese XXX Rum) which were recovered from inside his house. 4. The prosecution case in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 1979 was that the accused was found in illegal possession of four bottles of wine (Bhutanese XXX Rum) which were recovered from inside his house. The Search Officer stated in his evidence that he believed and presumed the contents of the bottles to be Bhutanese Rum because the labels in the bottles indicated so and the contents were not sent for chemical examination. The prosecution did not contend that Bhutanese Rum had been notified by the State Govern­ment. The learned Single Judge of this Court held : "In cases of prohibition there has to be a statement that the liquid is liquor as defined in the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the liquor by an expert. If a person by sufficient training and experience gathers such expertise as to report whether a particular liquid is liquor as defined in the Act, the Court may be justified in basing conviction on such report. In the instant case P.W. 4 clearly stated that he imagined the contents to be liquor only from the labels on the bottles. The bottles were also admittedly sealed. There may be a presumption that the contents of the bottles were nothing else than what was indicated by the labels. But in such cases where the person in possession is convicted under the Act it is the duty of the prosecution to prove it by evidence and not simply by basing its case on presumption. It cannot, therefore, be said that the pros­ecution has discharged the burden of proving the contents of the bottles to be liquor containing above 5 percent alcohol." (Emphasis supplied). One of us (Bhat C. J.) who originally heard the criminal revision held that some of the above observations are too broad in import and require reconsideration, and accordingly referred the case to a Division Bench. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has invited our attention to a few other decisions. In State vs. Sanwal Ram, 1971 Crl LJ 200, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considered the question arising under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 involving seizure of two bottles said to contain liquor. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has invited our attention to a few other decisions. In State vs. Sanwal Ram, 1971 Crl LJ 200, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court considered the question arising under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 involving seizure of two bottles said to contain liquor. There was only the' evidence of the Excise inspector in this behalf, the Court observed that it has not been shown that the witness was an expert and has bare opinion unsupported by grounds could not be accepted. In Pitamber vs. State, 1975 Crl LJ 948, a learned Single Judge the Allahabad High Court on a similar reasoning held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Reference has also been made to a decision of a learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in State vs. Madhukar Gopinath Lolge, AIR 1967 Bombay 61. 6. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Madiga flboseiina & others, AIR 1967 SC 1550 the Stiprefne Court affirmed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1964 Andbra Pradesh 420 setting aside the conv­iction for ah offence under section 4(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act, 1937. According to the prosecution, the accused were found transporting fifty gallons of arrack in a bullock cart. The Officers concerned deposed that when the bullock cart came near them, there was smell of arrack, that the tins, were pierced with bayonet and there was smell of arrack;. The Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Prohibition Act defines `liquor' as including toddy, spirits of wine, methylated spirits, spirits, wine, beer and all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol. The Supreme Court observed that merely trusting to the smelling sense of the officers and basing the conviction on such evidence could not be justified, particularly, in the light of the stand taken by the accused that no arrack was seized from them. The Court referred to an earlier decision in Baidyanath Mishra vs. State of Orissa which relates to the possession of opium and distinguished it on facts. It is instructive to note that in Baidyanath's case the Court observed- "It is true that opium is a substance which once seen and smelt can never be forgotten because opium possesses a characteristic appearance and a very strong and characteristic scent. It is instructive to note that in Baidyanath's case the Court observed- "It is true that opium is a substance which once seen and smelt can never be forgotten because opium possesses a characteristic appearance and a very strong and characteristic scent. It is possible for people to identify opium without having to subject the product to a chemical analysis." 7. Our attention is also invited to another decision reported in Sri Chand Batra vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 639 . It was a case of conviction under section 60 (a) of the U.P. Excise Act, the accused having be en found preparing liquor with the aid of various materials in a room of a bungalow. The officer conducted Hydrometer test and signed the recovery memo, and in the remarks column, the result of the test report of the liquor was given. The Supreme Court noticed the false defence raised by the accused that he was not present in the house at the time of search and drew an inference that he did so because he was aware of the incriminating nature particularly since he was an employee in a liquor shop. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 11 as follows: "We think that it is not desirable to lay down an inflexible rule on questions of fact even though their determination requires the adoption of scientific methods and tests. It is really for the Court of fact to decide whether, upon a consideration of the totality of the facts in a case, it has been satisfactorily established that the objects recovered from the possession of the accused included liquor of prohibited strength: We see no reason why an accused person in the position of the appellant, who could be presumed to have `enough knowledge about the "composition and strength of Ihe "prohibited liquor could not raise this question in the trial Court so that the prosecution may cure whatever weakness there might be in the evidence on that point. We do not think that he should be allowed to raise it at a stage when it may be difficult or impossible to adopt a conclusive test." (Emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court noticed that in the cross-examination of the Excise Inspector no question was put to suggest that the accused questioned the composition or strength of the liquid recovered as alcohol of prohibited strength or the competence of the Excise Inspector to give his conclusion on the strength of tests adopted by him, and defence did not lead evidence to indicate that the liquid could be anything else. The Supreme Court further observed that the proposition contained in Boosenna's case must be confined to its own facts. The Supreme Court on an examination of the evidence found that the particular Excise Inspector could be treated as an expert within the meaning of section 45 of the Evidence Act and held that his evidence!could be accepted. 8. The High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala vs. Narayanan, 1962 KLT 31 , had occasion to consider a similar question with reference to prosecution under section 51 (a) and 54 of the Travancore Abkari Regulation (Regulation IV of 1873). The accused was charged with being in possession of fermented toddy (in excess of the quantity prescribed by the Government) and illicit arrack. The illicit arrack was found inside the kitchen and the toddy was found in a mud pot hidden in the compound. This was spoken to by two Excise Officers, who also deposed that from their experience they could identify arrack by taste. The trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the articles were not sent for chemical analysis The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence of the two Officers. The Court relying on the decisions of the Madras High Court in In Re Rajabather, AIR 1959 Madras 450, of the Allahabad High Court in Mt. Titli vs. Alfred Robert Jones, AIR 1934 All. The Court relying on the decisions of the Madras High Court in In Re Rajabather, AIR 1959 Madras 450, of the Allahabad High Court in Mt. Titli vs. Alfred Robert Jones, AIR 1934 All. 273, and Gobardhan vs. The State, AIR 1959 All 53 , of the Nagpur High Court in Ramkaran Singh vs. Emperor, AIR 1935 Nagpur 13, and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Paltu vs. State of MP, AIR 1961 MP 5 , held that the Excise Officers may be considered as experts on the question whether certain liquid is illicit liquor or not, though the Court should ascertain the grounds on which their opinion is based so as to test it, and conviction could be entered even without a chemical examination report. Reliance was also placed on the following observation of Ramaswami, J. in In Re Rajabather (supra): "The contention that it must be sent to chemical examiner has to be rejected out of hand as wholly impraciticable. It would bring the working of the Madras Prohibition Act to a standstill and thereby defeat the most beneficient measure enacted in the interests of the people...." 9. In Dominic vs. State of Kerala, 1989 (1) KLT 601 , the High Court was considering a case where chemical examiner's report as well as oral evidence of seizing officers were relied on by the prosecution. The evidence afforded by chemical analysis was shown to be not conclusive in view of some infirmity. Referring to the evidence of the officers, the Court observed: "...They say that the smell of ganja was emanating from the carton. According to them, the smell was strong. The evidence of experienced officers that the article smelt of ganja cannot be rejected. Olfactory sense can be relied on, though that may not always be conclusive. It is common knowledge not to say experience of everyday life that many articles are identified by smell, particularly those one is familiar with. Smell is one of the senses of perception with which man is endowed. It is as important as sight, or hearing. Many moments of life are mingled with smells. Even memories. Identification by smell cannot be rejected as inconclusive in all cases." 10. In Georgekutty vs. State of Kerala, 1991 (2) KLT 570 , the Court was considering the case of a person charged of drunkenness. It is as important as sight, or hearing. Many moments of life are mingled with smells. Even memories. Identification by smell cannot be rejected as inconclusive in all cases." 10. In Georgekutty vs. State of Kerala, 1991 (2) KLT 570 , the Court was considering the case of a person charged of drunkenness. There was no scientific evidence by way of urine tester blood test. There was only the evidence of a medical officer based on general behaviour, state of clothing, character of speech, self-control, memory, character of handwriting, pulse, temperature, state of skin, mouth and teeth, smell, appearance of eyes, pupils, gait, muscular co-ordination, etc. The Court held that drunkenness is a question of fact which can be decided on the basis of the above circumsta­nces. In this connection, the Court observed: "...Sight, sound, olfactory sense, touch, etc. are faculties that aid human beings in reaching conclusions. Like identification is made by sight, or recognition is made by voice, identification of substances are made by smell. For that matter, identification of articles of food, fruits, flowers and perfumes are made by smell. To make out Roses or Jasmine or Lavender, no laboratory test is needed. We hasten to add that we are not laying down as a rule, that smell is invariably conclusive of the inentity of an article. Determination is to be made on an overall assessment of facts and circumstances. But, we have no doubt that neither the section, nor the decision of the Supreme Court (Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra, 1972 SCC (Crl.) 178) yields the inference that a charge of drunkenness cannot be found unless blood or urine is examined.” 11. A fact is said to be proved when; after considering the matter before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its insistence so probable that a prudent man, ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. In judging whether a fact is proved the Court is entitled to take into consideration not only the evidence placed before it but also the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. The method of proof must be as laid down in the Evidence Act, 1872. However, there is, in law, no prescribed quantity or quality of the evidence in proof of any fact. The test is of a prudent person. The method of proof must be as laid down in the Evidence Act, 1872. However, there is, in law, no prescribed quantity or quality of the evidence in proof of any fact. The test is of a prudent person. Of course, in criminal cases, the Courts insist that proof should be beyond reasonable doubt that is, proof of guilt of the accused and not of any particular fact. It is not necessary that, proof should be perfect, for nothing can be perfect in this imperfect world or system. The Court must always be cognizant of the rules of relevancy contained in Chapter II of the Evidence Act and of the mode of proof laid down in the Act. Evidence of relevant facts is relevant; admissions are; relevant; opinion of expert is relevant and when opinion is relevant ground of opinion is also relevant. Facts which could be perceived by eyes, the ears and other senses could be proved by withesses who `saw' `heard' or `perceived with senses' (Section 60 of the Evidence Act). Certain facts may be judicially noticed. Existence of facts can be presumed under given circumstances. It is a misapprehension of law to assert that presumptions have no place in criminal jurisprudence. Section 114, Evidence Act clearly indicates that presumptions have their own place in the field of proof. Scientific evidence in the form of evidence of experts has its own role to ploy. 12. Courts cannot insist that any particular fact must be proved in any particular manner, unless that particular manner is prescribed by law. Proof can be attempted by adducing admissible and relevant evidence. The Court is to see that the evidence inspires confidence or is trustworthy. As observed by Supreme Court in Chand Batra's case it is not desirable to laid down any inflexible rule in regard to the proof of facts. 13. It is for the Court to decide whether upon consideration of the tota­lity of the facts in a case, it has ceen satisfactorily established that the liquid recovered is liquor of prohibited strength. In so deciding, the Court has to consider the evidence adduced in proof of the charge, the situation and cond­uct of the accused as shown by the evidence and the inferences which could be drawn therefrom. In so deciding, the Court has to consider the evidence adduced in proof of the charge, the situation and cond­uct of the accused as shown by the evidence and the inferences which could be drawn therefrom. The circumstance that the accused took or did not take a particular stand in the trial Court, that he raised or did not raise a particular question in the trial Court, that there was effective cross-examination or no cross-examination of any witness or witnesses regarding a particular aspect could be considered by the Court in deciding whether any fact or ingredient of offence has been proved. The observations of the Supreme Court in Boosenna's case, as held by the Court in Chand Batra's case, must be confined to the facts of the case. It must necessarily follow that the observations of this Court in Criminal Revision No 80 of 1979 must be con­fined to the facts of the case. If the decision is to be understood as laying down a proposition that there cannot be a conviction without evidence of a scientific expert who subjected the liquid to scientific test, with respect, it does not lay down good law particularly in the light of the observations of Chand Batra's case. The question in issue has to be decided on the basis of facts and evidence in each case. The Court has to answer the question, can it act on the evidence placed before it in a given case, in the light of totality of circumstances? There may be cases where evidence of on experienced Excise Officer or Prohibition Officer or Detecting Officer is available. The Court must examine if the officer giving opinion that the liquid is illicit liquor has. expertise in the field, the ground on which opinion is based, and if satified about the same, choose to act upon it. There cannot be inflexible or infallible principle. The opinion based on the officer's experience about the smell, taste appearance or other relevant aspects can be accepted not only where the question is whether the article is liquor or not but also where the question is whether the article is liquor with alcoholic content beyond a particular limit. 14. We have to see whether the Courts below committed any error in acting on the evidenc. on record. 14. We have to see whether the Courts below committed any error in acting on the evidenc. on record. The only evidence provided by Officer concerned is that the bottle contained the name of the company engraved on the bottle. There was a label indicating `Wine'. The Officer who deposed that it was India made forein liquor did not even open the bottle or examine the contents. From the label he concluded that it was India made forein liquor. His opinion, therefore, is not based on satisfactory grounds and could not be treated as legally acceptable evidence. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner cannot stand. They are set aside and he il acquitted of the charge against him. His bail bonds are cancelled, Fine, if paid any, shall be refunded to him. 15. The revision petion is thus allowed.