JUDGMENT Hegde, J.- The respondents were prosecuted for an offence under section 4 (1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act which shall hereinafter be referred to as the Act, in Calendar Case No. 2 of 1960 on the file of the learned Sub-Magistrate (Judicial), Puttur, but they were acquitted. The State has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal. The charge against the respondents was that they were in possession of 6 ¾ gallons of “Asavas” and “Aristas” which were classified as liquor as defined in section 3(9) of the Act, and consequently they contravened section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The facts of this case are not in dispute. P.W.1 Sri N. Mukundan searched the premises in the occupation of the respondents on 30th April, 1959. At that time he seized from the shop 64 bottles containing “Aristas” and “Asavas” manufactured by the Bhuvanendra Products at Katpadi. The question for consideration is whether such a possession is an offence in law. As per section 3(9) all ‘liquids’ consisting or containing alcohol is ‘liquor‘. Possession of any liquor is prohibited by section 4(1)(a). But under Section 16 the State Government may, by Notification and subject to such conditions as they think fit, exempt any specified liquor or intoxicating drug or article containing such liquor, or drug from the observance of all or any of the provisions of the Act on the ground that such liquor, drug or article is required for a medicinal, scientific, industrial or such like purpose. The plea of the accused is that the articles seized in this case were exempted from the operation of the Act as per Notification No. 941 dated 3rd December, 1952. This Notification says that “in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 16 , 18 and 18(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, (Madras Act X of 1937) the Governor of Madras hereby (a) exempts all indigenous medicinal preparation known purely as Asavas and Aristas containing self-generating spirit from all the provisions of the said Act subject to the following conditions. ****** 5.(b)provided that a breach of any of the conditions aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both.” In the instant case, the respondents are not prosecuted for the contravention of any one of the conditions contained in Notification No. 941. ****** 5.(b)provided that a breach of any of the conditions aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or with both.” In the instant case, the respondents are not prosecuted for the contravention of any one of the conditions contained in Notification No. 941. Therefore, the crucial question for our determination is whether the “Aristas” and “Asavas” seized in this case fall within the scope of the aforementioned notification. The prosecution case itself is that seized articles are “Aristas and “Asavas” manufactured by a reputed firm. The Chemical Examiner who is examined as P.W.5 in this case, is not sure whether the “Asavas” and “Aristas” concerned in this case contain self-generated spirit. In short, the prosecution has not satisfactorily established that the “Asavas” and “Aristas” with which we are concerned in this case do not fall within the scope of Notification No. 941. So long as we are not in a position to say that the “Asavas” and “Aristas” concerned in this case are not purely “Asavas” and “Aristas” containing self-generated spirit, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the exemption found in Clause(a)of the aforesaid Notification. Sri Shankara Chetty the learned Additional Assistant Advocate General contended that the Notification relevant for our purpose is Notification No. 324/1 dated 25th October, 1949. As per Clause (ii) or that Notification “medical wines and similar preparations including all Ayurvedic preparations going by the names “Asavas” and “Aristas” and all other preparations in the manufacture of which alcohol is produced by fermentation during the process of manufacture” are governed by that Notification. There is no material before us to conclude that the “Asavas” and “Aristas” seized in this case are medicated wines or similar preparations in the manufacture of which alcohol is produced by fermentation during the process of manufacture. On the other hand, P.W.1 has stated that the “Asavas” and “Aristas” in this case are Ayurvedic preparations which self-generate alcohol without alcohol being added to them. It is unnecessary for our purpose to decide whether any portion of Notification No. 3240 is abrogated by Notification No. 941. On the other hand, P.W.1 has stated that the “Asavas” and “Aristas” in this case are Ayurvedic preparations which self-generate alcohol without alcohol being added to them. It is unnecessary for our purpose to decide whether any portion of Notification No. 3240 is abrogated by Notification No. 941. Even if we agree with the learned Additional Assistant Advocate General-though we do not wish to express any opinion on that point-that both the Notifications are fully in force at present, we are not in a position to say that the provisions of Notification No. 941 of 1952 are inapplicable to the “Asavas” and “Aristas” concerned in this case. Unless the prosecution is able to establish that the seized article; do not come within the scope of Notification No. 941, it is notpossible to say that there has been any contravention of section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In view of our above finding, it follows that this appeal must fail, and it is dismissed accordingly. S.V.S.-----Appeal dismissed.