Judgment :- 1. The State has filed this appeal. On 8-8-60 Pw.1 the Excise Inspector seized from the possession of the accused 21 bottles of Dashmoolarishta,11 bottles of Arjunarishta & 30 bottles of Asokamritharishta. Ex. P1 is the mahazar. One bottle from each of the three varieties were sent to the Chemical Analyst. His certificate Ex-P2 disclosed that Dashmoolarishta contained 7% alcohol, Arujunarishta 8% alcohol and Asokamritharishta 6% of alcohol. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted under S.8(1)(a) of the Travancore-Cochin Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being in possession of medicinal preparations containing alcohol. 2. The recovery and possession are admitted. The case of the accused is that he got the bottles from Sivananda Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Works, Rishikesh. In proof of the same he has produced Exs-D1 and D2 booklet and invoice from the company. The bottles contained a label that they were free from alcohol. On a consideration of the evidence the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the two grounds, firstly that there is no evidence that the sample bottles sent by Pw.1 were from out of the stock seized from the accused, and secondly on the ground that the Asavas and Arishtas cannot be classified as liquor. 3.S.8 (1) (a) reads as follows "Whoever imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." 4. We have then to see whether this medicinal preparation can come within the meaning of liquor. (Liquor is defined in S.7 sub-section (8). It reads: "Liquor" includes toddy, spirits of wine, methylated spirits, spirits, wine, beer and all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol." These medicinal preparations would certainly come within the term'liquid' and if the liquid is proved to contain alcohol the possession of the same would be an offence under S.8 (1) (a) of the Act. 5. In this connection I might refer to S.21. S.21 reads: "(1) Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions as they think fit, exempt any specified liquor or intoxicating drug, or articles containing such liquor or drug from the observance of all or any of the provisions of this Act on the ground that such liquor, drug or article is required for a medicinal, scientific, industrial, or such like purpose. (2) ............................................. 6. (2) ............................................. 6. Therefore it follows that unless exempted under S.21 the possession of medicinal preparations containing alcohol would come within the mischief of the provisions of the Act. I have not been referred to any notification which exempts possession of these medicinal preparations & persons exempted will hold a licence. Pw.1's evidence that the accused had no licence has not been challenged. Therefore the accused is certainly guilty of the offence under S.8 (1) (a) of the Act. 7. Regarding the other objection that there is no evidence that the bottles sent for analysis were from among the bottles signed from the accused, we have the evidence of Pw.1 that from out of the stock seized three bottles one from each variety with the company seals and labels in fact were sent by him to the Chemical Examiner. There is absolutely no reason to distrust his testimony. Ex. P2 the report of the Chemical Examiner shows that three sealed bottles containing liquor labelled as Dashamoolarishta, Arjunarishta and Asokamritharista manufactured by Sivananda Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Works, Rishikesh, Uttar Pradesh sent by Pw.1 were duly received by the Analyst, that each bottle contained 16 oz., and that on analysis it was found that they had the percentage of alcohol as shown in the certificate. The evidence is clear and conclusive and the learned Magistrate was wrong in thinking that it has not been proved that the bottles sent for analysis were from among the bottles taken from the accused. The acquittal of the accused is, therefore, unsustainable in law. The order of acquittal is set aside. He is found guilty of the offence charged against him. 8. Regarding the sentence it is pointed out that he had not manufactured them here, that he had got it from outside and was misled by the label which shows that it was free from alcohol. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I am tempted to take a lenient view. I sentence the accused ton pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. 9. M.O.1 series 59 bottles of asavas and aristas seized by Pw.1 have not been proved to contain alcohol. They cannot therefore, be ordered to be confiscated under S.18 of the Act. They will be returned to the person from whom it was taken into custody. Time for payment of fine one month from this date. 9. M.O.1 series 59 bottles of asavas and aristas seized by Pw.1 have not been proved to contain alcohol. They cannot therefore, be ordered to be confiscated under S.18 of the Act. They will be returned to the person from whom it was taken into custody. Time for payment of fine one month from this date. The appeal is allowed. Allowed.