Order.- These two petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in these petitions are different persons. The petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 is the accused in C.C. No. 105 of 1971 on the ale of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram and the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972 is the accused in C.C. No. 88 of 1971 on the file of the same Magistrate. The prayer in both these petitions is to quash the proceedings on the ground that the facts alleged in the charge-sheet even if they are accepted to be correct at their face value, do not make out the offences as stated by the prosecution. The facts relevant for purposes of these petitions are that the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 is one of the accused in C.C. No. 105 of 1971. He is a resident of Hyderabad and proprietor of Dosani Chemical Industries, Hyderabad, a concern which is engaged in the manufacture of chloroform. The other accused in the case are the lorry driver and the cleaner of the lorry No. A.P.V. 5560. The petitioner is the holder of a permit to purchase and transport rectified spirit at 2000 litres per month for the months of January to March, 1970 issued by the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad. The 1st accused was to obtain supply of rectified spirit from Rama Sugars Ltd., Bobbili and transport the same to the premises of his industry at Bandalaguda Village, Hyderabad. The petitioner was given a licence and a permit for the purpose. He has committed breach of condition No. 8 of the said permit by breaking open the bulk of the consignment of the rectified spirit obtained from the suppliers on his way to Hyderabad and unloaded ten drums of rectified spirit in the house rented by the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1572. Consequently, the prosecution laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1821 of 1571 under section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and against the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972 under section 34 (a) of the same Act for having acquired and kept in possession rectified spirit without a licence or permit, 2. Mr. Consequently, the prosecution laid a charge-sheet against the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1821 of 1571 under section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and against the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972 under section 34 (a) of the same Act for having acquired and kept in possession rectified spirit without a licence or permit, 2. Mr. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned Advocate for the petitioners in these petitions contends that even if the facts stated in the charge-sheet are taken to be correct at their face value, they do not make, out an offence under the relevant provisions mentioned above. He contends that a perusal of the permit would show that it was granted under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F. The charge-sheet also discloses that the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 had contravened the provisions of Condition No. 8 of the said permit and rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964. It is his contention that the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act came into force in 1968 and before that date only the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., was in force, and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964 were framed under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., which do not extend to the Andhra area. Hence he submits that having regard to the provisions of section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 no offence is made out. I cannot accede to any of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate. It is to be noted that before the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., was in force only in the area known as Telangana area. The Andhra Pradesh Excise Act received the assent of the President on 26th August, 1968. Initially this Act was made applicable only to the Telangana area. Later, however, on 11th October, 1969 by G.O. Ms. No. 989, Revenue, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act were extended to the Andhra area as well. Thus it will be seen that the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was made applicable to the Andhra area before the date of the offence i.e., 27th February, 1970. Later, however, on 11th October, 1969 by G.O. Ms. No. 989, Revenue, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act were extended to the Andhra area as well. Thus it will be seen that the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 was made applicable to the Andhra area before the date of the offence i.e., 27th February, 1970. Sub-seccion (1) of section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 which deals with the regulations of transport of intoxicants provides: “(1) The Government may, by notification, prohibit the transport of an intoxicant or any kind of intoxicants from any area into any other area within the State, except under a permit issued under section 12.” Section 12 of the said Act provides: "(11 The Excise Superintendent, may issue a permit for the transport of intoxicants. (2) A permit under sub-section (1) may be either general for definite periods and kinds of intoxicants or special, for specified occasions and particular consignments only;" Sub-section (3) of section 12 provides: "(3) Every permit under this section shall specify (a) the name of the person authorised to transport intoxicants; (b) the period for and the route through which the permit shall be valid; (c) the quality, strength and description of intoxicants for which it is issued; and (d) any other particulars and conditions which may be prescribed." 3. ‘Intoxicant’ has been defined in section 2 (19) of the said Act to mean any liquor as defined in clause (21) and clause (21) defines ‘liquor’ so as to include rectified spirits. Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act provides that the Government may by notification, specify the maximum quantity of any intoxicant which a person may have in his possession and under sub-section (2) no person shall have in his possession any intoxicant in excess of the quantity specified under sub-section (1) except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of (a) a licence for the manufacture, cultivation, collection, sale, buying or supply of such article, or (b) a permit. Section 34 of the Act provides for penalties for illegal import, and the relevant portion of section 36 which deals with penalty for misconduct of licensees reads as follows: "(1) Whoever being the holder of a licence or permit granted or issued under this Act or being in the employ of such holder and acting on his behalf, (a) fails to produce such licence or permit on demand by any excise officer or any other officer duly empowered to make such demand; or (b) wilfully does or omits to do anything in breach of any of the conditions of his licence or permit not otherwise provided in this Act; or (c) wilfully contravenes any Rule made under this Act; ............ Section 73 of the Act deals with repeal and savings and the relevant portion thereof reads as follows: "(a) the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Abkari Act, 1886 (Act I of 1886), with all the subsequent statutory modifications thereof; (b) the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316-F. (Act No. I of 1316-F.). (c) the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Intoxicating Drugs Act, 1333-F. (Act No. IV of 1333-F.); are hereby repealed: Provided that section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891, shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactments and sections 8 and 18 of the said Act, shall be applicable as if the said enactments had been repealed and re-enacted by an Andhra Pradesh Act.........." It will thus be seen that according to subsections (19) and (21) of section 2 of the Act, rectified spirit is an intoxicant and consequently the business is controlled by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Under section 14, no person is entitled to possess any intoxicant in excess of the permitted quantity without a licence and G.O. Ms. No. 1087, Revenue, dated 12th November, 1969, prohibits possession of any quantity of rectified spirit by any person without a licence. The entire argument of Mr. Ayyapu Reddy is that the licence or the permit that had been issued to the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1821 of 1971 would show that it was issued under the form R.S. ‘3’. This form finds place in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964 framed under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F. which does not extend to Andhra Area. This form finds place in the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964 framed under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F. which does not extend to Andhra Area. I fail to appreciate this contention in view of the provisions of section 73 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. A plain reading of the said section would show that the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316-F., was repealed by Act XVII of 1968 but it was provided that section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 shall be applicable in respect of the repeal of the said enactments and sections 8 and 18 of the said Act shall be applicable as if the said enactments had been repealed and reenacted by an Andhra Pradesh Act. Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 reads as follows: “Where any Act to which this Chapter applies, repeals any other enactment, then the repeal shall not — (a) affect anything done or any offence committed, or any fine or penalty incurred or any proceedings before the commencement of the repealing Act; or (b) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (c) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (f) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not been passed.” Section 18 of the said Act provides: “Where an Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, all or any of the provisions of a former Act, references in any other Act to the provision so repealed shall be construed as references to the provisions so re-enacted, and if notifications have been published, proclamations or certificates issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local limits defined, offices established, orders, Rules and appointments made, engagements entered into, licences or permits granted, and other things duly done, under the provisions so repealed, the same shall be deemed, so far as the same are consistent with the provisions so re-enacted, to have been respectively published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined established, made, entered into, granted or done under the provisions so re-enacted.” The only reasonable interpretation possible of the above provisions of sections 8 and 18 of the said Act is that permits, forms, orders, Rules granted, made or published under the provisions of the repealed Act would be deemed to be in existence until new Rules are framed and would be deemed to be as if made under the new Act. It is true that the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., did not extend to the Andhra Area; but the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and has his business concern situated in Hyderabad which is within the Telangana area; therefore, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964 framed under the Hyderabad Abkari Act, 1316-F., would be in force until the promulgation of the Rules under the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The petitioner has obtained a permit under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964 and has his business concern in the Telangana area. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioner could be prosecuted for an offence of breach of any of the conditions of the licence or permit issued under the rules and also for breach of rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Rectified Spirit Rules, 1964. A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that the petitioner is being prosecuted for contravention of section 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Under section 36 of the said Act, whoever being the holder of a licence or permit wilfully does or omits to do anything in breach of any of the conditions of the licence or permit is liable to penalty. Condition No. 8 of the permit granted to the petitioner provides that the 1st accused should not break the bulk of the consignment of the rectified spirit obtained from his supplier on the way and should open the containers only in the presence of the Sub-Inspector of Excise incharge of hi industry. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 105 of 1971. The petitioner, however, will be entitled to argue this point at the time of final hearing. 4. So far as the proceedings in C.C. No. 88 of l971 are concerned, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings because section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 is very clear in this respect. The accused is alleged to have been in possession of ten drums of rectified spirit without a permit. It is abundantly clear that the prosecution made out an offence under section 34 read with section i4 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972. 5. Hence both the petitions are dismissed. The accused is alleged to have been in possession of ten drums of rectified spirit without a permit. It is abundantly clear that the prosecution made out an offence under section 34 read with section i4 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 749 of 1972. 5. Hence both the petitions are dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Petitions dismissed.