1. This is am appeal against acquittal. The accused who is the proprietor of the S. N. V. Vaidyasala at Mannampoor was prosecuted by the Preventive Officer, Varkala range under S.8 (1) of the Prohibition Act (Act XIII of 1950) for having been found in possession of illicit arrack. About one para of illicit arrack was found in an earthen pot in the hall room of the vaidyasala which is located within the prohibition area. His defence was that he is a Vaidyan licensed to prepare and sell 'Asavams' and 'Arishtams'. The article recovered from the Vaidyasala, according to the prosecution was illicit wash used for manufacturing illicit arrack. But according to the accused it was Usirasavam Dincmkhw which under the licence held by him, he is authorised to manufacture. The licence held by him was produced and marked in the case as Ex. P-4. Authority is conferred on him under Ex. P-4, to prepare only five categories of ayurvedic medicines and they are:-

(i) Dasamoolarishtam

(ii) Asokarishtam

(iii) Abhayarishtam

(iv) Kudajarishtam, and

(v) Usirasavam.

2. According to the accused, as already stated, the liquid recovered from the vaidyasala was the last mentioned drug, viz., Usirasavam. B