K.S. Menon, J.
1. The petitioners have been convicted under Sections 55(b), 55(g) and 58 of the Madras Abkari Act I of 1886. Both the lower Courts have, on a consideration of the entire evidence, found that the petitioners unlawfully manufactured some arrack and were in possession of the same and I am not prepared to say that the finding is wrong. But, as the case is that the arrack found in the possession of the petitioners was manufactured by themselves, the first question is whether they can be convicted separately under Section 55(b) and Section 55(g) of the Act. If it was they who manufactured it, they must naturally be in possession of materials, utensils, apparatus, etc., for the purpose of manufacturing it. The offence of manufacturing it, namely, the one comprised in Section 55(b) therefore includes the offence relating to possession of the apparatus, etc., namely that comprised in Section 55(g). There cannot, therefore, be a conviction under Section 55(b), as well as under Section 55(g). Again, if a person unlawfully manufactures arrack and is thus in possession of such unlawfully manufactured arrack, I do not think that he can further be convicted under Section 58, for the manufacture itself will give him possession of such arrack. In this case therefore there can be a conviction only under Section 55(b). The convictions and the sentences under Sections 55(g) and 58 are therefore set aside and the fines imposed thereunder, if already paid, are ordered to be refunded, and the conviction and the sentence under Section 55(b) alone are upheld.