Ramaswami, J. This is a case of a jutka driver who had in his possession a bottle of varnish made palatable and potable as illicit liquor. The point raised by Mr. Sathiadev was also raised in the Court below, namely, whether the petitioner could not be punished for infringement of the Rules framed under section 16 or whether he should be punished under section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act. It makes a lot of difference to the accused because if it is an infringement of the Rules, the maximum penalty is six months. If, on the other hand, it is an infringement of the Act, the minimum punishment itself is six months. It is no doubt true that this question indirectly arose in a Bench decision of this Court reported in Hussain Bee v. State1, and in another single Judge’s decision in Amir Sultan v. State2. In both those cases the point arose in another fashion and not as here where an ordinary citizen who is permitted to keep a little amount of varnish probably to paint his jutka or furniture in his house has converted it into an illicit liquor making it potable by adding some substance. The considerations which weighed with the Judges in those two cases may not arise at all here. Inasmuch as I understand that varnish drinking is on the increase, this requires an authoritative pronouncement. The papers will be placed before the learned Chief Justice for orders regarding posting it before a Bench if My Lord is so pleased. In pursuance of the above Order of Reference the petition was posted before a Bench (Anantanarayanan and Srinivasan, JJ.). G. Ramakrishnan for T. Sathiadev, V.R. Venkatasamy and G. Arunachalam, for Petitioner. The Public Prosecutor (P.S. Kailasam) on behalf of the State. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Anantanarayanan, J.†- This is a reference by Ramaswami, J., arising from the facts of the case. The learned Judge felt that there was need for an authoritative pronouncement upon the point involved. The revision petitioner was convicted under section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act for the alleged offence of rendering potable and fit for human consumption as illicit liquor, a bottle of varnish in his possession. The learned Judge felt that there was need for an authoritative pronouncement upon the point involved. The revision petitioner was convicted under section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act for the alleged offence of rendering potable and fit for human consumption as illicit liquor, a bottle of varnish in his possession. The point raised was whether the revision petitioner could be convicted under section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act, when, according to his learned counsel, the offence was strictly punishable under the Rules framed under section 16 (1) of the Act, for which the maximum penalty is provided under section 16 (2) of the Act. Ramaswami, J., felt that the decision of this Court in Amir Sultan v. State1which laid down the proposition that an offence committed in respect of the transport of denatured spirit contravening certain rules framed under section 16, could be dealt with only as an infringement of those rules and not under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, had to be distinguished upon its facts, and did not apply to the present situation. We have now scrutinised this matter, in the light of recent amendments to the Rules, and the actual position in law appears to us to be quite clear and free from any difficulty. The position is as follows: With reference to the Rules framed under section 16 (1) of the Act as they originally stood, rule 10 laid down that "no person shall render or attempt to render varnish fit for human consumption”. Under rule 11, a breach of all or any of the Rules promulgated was liable to be punished with imprisonment which might extend to six months or with fine which might extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both. Undoubtedly, had rule 10 stood unaltered, the present offence would also fall within the ambit of that rule, and, upon the broad principle offAmir Sultan v. State,1referred to earlier, would be punishable only under the Rules, and not under section 5 or any other section of the Prohibition Act itself. Apparently, the authorities realised this position and were anxious that this particular infringement should be punishable under section 5 of the Act, as it directly constitutes an offence within the wording of section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act Consequently, the authorities eliminated the rule set forth by us earlier, and substituted therefor a note to the following effect... Apparently, the authorities realised this position and were anxious that this particular infringement should be punishable under section 5 of the Act, as it directly constitutes an offence within the wording of section 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act Consequently, the authorities eliminated the rule set forth by us earlier, and substituted therefor a note to the following effect... “the rendering or attempting to render any spirit or preparation containing spirit which has been denatured fit for human consumption. . . is punishable under section 5 of the Act”. Further, as these Rules amended in 1959 stand, this particular act of rendering a preparation containing spirit which has been denatured, fit for human consumption, is not a breach of the Rules, and is not punishable under the Rules per se. That being so, the legal position is very clear that this act is punishable under section 5 of the Prohibition Act alone, since it is clearly an offence within the ambit of the section. The present revision petitioner would certainly have a case, if he had committed the offence before the Rules were amended, and when this offence constituted a breach of the Rules punishable under those Rules. Admittedly he has not done so, and he committed the offence only after the elimination of this offence from the scope of the Rules. Consequently, the Courts below were perfectly justified in holding that the offence was punishable under section 5 of the Act alone and in dealing with the revision petitioner accordingly. The conviction must therefore be confirmed, and the sentence does not appear to us to be excessive or to merit any interference. The conviction and sentence are confirmed, and the Revision Petition is dismissed. P.R.N. ------------- Petition dismissed.Conviction and sentence confirmed.