In Re: Medapati Rama Rao and Others

K.S. Menon, J.—The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 55(b), 55(g) and 58 of the Madras Abkari Act I of 1886. Both the

lower Courts have, on a consideration of the entire evidence, found that the petitioners unlawfully manufactured some arrack and were in

possession of the same and I am not prepared to say that the finding is wrong. But, as the case is that the arrack found in the possession of the

petitioners was manufactured by themselves, the first question is whether they can be convicted separately u/s 55(b) and Section 55(g) of the Act.

If it was they who manufactured it, they must naturally be in possession of materials, utensils, apparatus, etc., for the purpose of manufacturing it.

The offence of manufacturing it, namely, the one comprised in Section 55(b) therefore includes the offence relating to possession of the apparatus,

etc., namely that comprised in Section 55(g). There cannot, therefore, be a conviction u/s 55(b), as well as u/s 55(g). Again, if a person unlawfully

manufactures arrack and is thus in possession of such unlawfully manufactured arrack, I do not think that he can further be convicted u/s 58, for the

manufacture itself will give him possession of such arrack. In this case therefore there can be a conviction only u/s 55(b). The convictions and the

sentences under Sections 55(g) and 58 are therefore set aside and the fines imposed thereunder, if already paid, are ordered to be refunded, and

the conviction and the sentence u/s 55(b) alone are upheld.