Anna Chandy, J.- This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal in a case charged under the Travancore Abkari Act. The respondent-accused is a registered Ayurvedic Physician having his Vaidyasala at Kallissery near Chengannur. On 3rd September, 1965, the Excise Inspector of Chengannur (P.W. 1) conducted a search of the Vaidyasala and recovered from there seven big bottles containing a liquid which on analysis was found to contain 11 to 12 per cent. by volume of ethyl alcohol. He was therefore charged under section 51 (a) of the Travancore Abkari Act for having been in possession of contraband liquor. The accused does not deny the search and recovery nor does he dispute the correctness of the result of the chemical analysis. His case is that the bottles contained not contraband liquor but an Ayurvedic medicine for rheumatism which he used to sell under the name “Iron Blood in Benana”. The learned Judge accepted the defence case and held that the bottle contained an Ayurvedic preparation which under section 67 of the Travancore Abkari Act, the accused was permitted to possess. The main contention urged before us by the learned Prosecutor is that section 67 of the Abkari Act stands repealed by section 21 of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act and as such the acquittal cannot be sustained. Section 51 of the Travancore Abkari Act (IV of 1073, M.E.) under which the accused is charged reads as follows: “51. The main contention urged before us by the learned Prosecutor is that section 67 of the Abkari Act stands repealed by section 21 of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act and as such the acquittal cannot be sustained. Section 51 of the Travancore Abkari Act (IV of 1073, M.E.) under which the accused is charged reads as follows: “51. Whoever, in contravention of this Regulation, or any Rule or order made under this Regulation, or any licence or permit obtained under this Regulation,- (a) imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug or shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished for each such offence with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with both.” Medicated articles are removed from the purview of the Act by section 67 which is as follows: “Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Regulation applies to the manufacture, possession, sale or supply of any bona fide medicated article for medicinal purposes by Medical Practitioners, chemists, druggists, apothecaries or keepers of dispensaries; but it shall be lawful for our Government at any time by Notification to prohibit the sale of any such article within any defined local area, except under a licence which shall be granted on payment of such fees and subject to such conditions as our Government may deem fit to prescribe.” The only relevant notification under the Act brought to the notice of the Court is Government Notification S.R. No. 356 dated 19th January, 1909, which reads thus: “In exercise of the power vested in Government by section 67 of the Abkari Regulation, IV of 1073, it is hereby notified that, from and after the. 1st Kumbhom (12th February 1909), he sale of medicated wines and similar preparations containing 20 per cent. and upwards, but not more than 42 per cent. of proof spirit, is prohibited throughout the whole of Travancore, except under a licence granted in accordance with the Rules prescribed for regulating the issue of licences for the sale of foreign liquor......” It is therefore clear that if section 67 of the Travancore Abkari Act is still in force, the accused, a registered Ayurvedic Physician cannot be held liable for an offence under section 51 (a) of the Act for possessing a medicinal preparation containing less than 20 per cent. alcohol. alcohol. As already noted the appellant’s contention is that section 67 of the Abkari Act has been repealed by the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. The Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act (XVI of 1955) is a Central Act providing for the levy and collection of duties of Excise on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, opium or other narcotics. Section 21 of the Act reads thus: “If, immediately before the commencement of this Act there is in force in any State by law corresponding to this Act, the law is hereby repealed. Provided that all rules made, notifications issued, licences or permits granted, powers conferred under any law hereby repealed shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, have the same force or effect as if they had been respectively made, issued, granted or conferred under this Act and by the authority empowered hereby in that behalf.” The above section makes it quite clear that if the Travancore Abkari Act corresponds to Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act then the former stands repealed. In a decision this Court reported in Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals (Travancore), Ltd. v. State of Kerala1, which dealt with the effect of section 21 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act on the Travancore Abkari Act as was held that: “The Travancore Act as a whole is not an Act corresponding to the Central Act. But to the limited extent, such as these provisions of the Travancore Act dealing with the manufacture, levy of duty and issue of licences relating to medicinal preparations containing in the Central Act, must be considered to have been repealed by section 21 of the Central Act.” In a similar case where the question was whether the Mysore Excise Act (V of 1901) stood repealed by virtue of section 21 of the Central Act the Mysore High Court took the view: “......the Mysore Excise Act is not a law made exclusively for the purpose of imposing duties of excise. As the preamble to that Act shows, it was enacted for the purpose of regulating the import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and of intoxicating drugs in Mysore. As the preamble to that Act shows, it was enacted for the purpose of regulating the import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and of intoxicating drugs in Mysore. If there is any provision in the Mysore Act by which any duties of excise were imposed on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, the provision alone will stand repelled by reason of the 21st section of the Central Act. But if there are other provisions in the Mysore Excise Act by which the import, export, transport, sale and possession of the intoxicating liquors or intoxicating drugs are also regulated, it would be going altogether too far for any one to suggest that even those provisions stood repealed when the Central Act imposing duties of excise on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol came into force.” Vide K.V. Sampath v. State of Mysore.1 The scheme of the Central Act makes it abundantly clear that it is a law passed for the purpose of imposing duties of excise on the manufacture of toilet and medicinal preparations and for no other purpose. This must be so, as the subject of Entry No. 84 in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution is not “medicinal and toilet preparations” but only “duties of excise on medicinal and Toilet Preparations containing alcohol.” As pointed out by the Federal Court in In the matter of Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938.2 “The power to make laws with respect to duties of excise given by the Constitution Act to the federal Legislature is to be construed as a power to impose duties of excise upon the manufacturer or producer of the excisable articles, or at least at the stage of, or in connection with, manufacture or production, and it extends no further.” It would therefore appear that only those provisions of the Travancore Abkari Act which deal with the manufacture or production of medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol for the purpose of imposing duties of excise on the articles can be considered to have been repealed by the Central Act. The charge in this case is not concerned with manufacture or production of these articles but merely with their possession and as such would still be governed by the provisions of the Travancore Act. The charge in this case is not concerned with manufacture or production of these articles but merely with their possession and as such would still be governed by the provisions of the Travancore Act. The accused can still claim the benefit of the exemption under section 67 of that Act. The appeal fails and has only to be dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.