Order.- Under the Hemp Drug Rules dated 1st February, 1936, framed under the Indian Abkari Act, there is rule 23 which allows any person to be in possession of not more than three tolas of ganja in the districts of the State of Madras except in the district of Madras and the Agency tracts of Ganjam, Vizagapatam and East Godavari. The accused here has been convicted under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act for being in possession of 1/16 tola of ganja and the lower Courts have held that he is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. In a Full Bench decision in Adi Lakshmiammal, In re1, it has been held that in so far as the Prohibition Act repeals the provisions of the Madras Abkari Act, they have not been reserved for the assent of the Governor-General or for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure and therefore the Madras Legislature had no power to interfere with the Madras Abkari Act so far as possession of dangerous drug is concerned. In that view, the Full Bench held that section 4 (1) (a) as it stands being entirely repugnant to an existing law is completely ultra vires so far as possession of ganja or any other dangerous drug is concerned. At page 44 of the report, Leach, C.J., delivering the judgment of the Bench observed as follows: “The Hemp Drug Rules framed under the statutory authority were notified on 1st February, 1936. By rule 23 a person may have in his possession in Agency tracts of Ganjam, Vizagapatam and East Godavari any quantity of ganja not exceeding two tolas and elsewhere in the presidency, any quantity not exceeding three tolas. Therefore, before the application of the Prohibition Act to the North Arcot district, a person there could lawfully possess three tolas of ganja”. As a result of this observation the Full Bench set aside the conviction of a person who was found to be in possession of ganja not exceeding three tolas in the district of North Arcot. This decision would have applied in its entirety to the facts of the present case had it not been for the fact that the Madras Prohibition Supplementary Act XI of 1941 rectified the mistake pointed out by the Full Bench. This decision would have applied in its entirety to the facts of the present case had it not been for the fact that the Madras Prohibition Supplementary Act XI of 1941 rectified the mistake pointed out by the Full Bench. Madras Act XI of 1941 by section 2 provided that the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act in regard to intoxicating drugs shall apply to every intoxicating drug as therein specified although such drug may also be a dangerous drug. In view of this rectifying clause, it cannot be held that the rules framed under the Hemp Drug Rules are in force after the enactment of the Madras Prohibition Supplementary Act XI of 1941. The conviction of the petitioner must therefore be held to be right. But the sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment in the circumstances of the case seems to be excessive for the possession of 1/16 tolas of ganja. It has been brought to my notice that the accused has undergone a period of ten days sentence prior to his being released on bail. I would therefore reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Otherwise the petition is dismissed. V.S. ----- Sentence reduced.