IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20503 of 2011 Ram Dular Kewat @ Ram Dular Chandra Kewat Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 02. 16.12.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. There has been recovery of country made wine(Mahua) from the house of Baleshwar Kewat, Ram Dular Kewat whereupon prosecution was launched and vide order dated 27.06.2009 cognizance has been taken under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution is bad on account of the fact that no seizure was made from the house of the petitioner Ram Dular Kewat @ Ram Dular Chandra Kewat in the light of the fact that one of the seizure list witness has sworn an affidavit. It has further been submitted that the wine so seized has not been sent for examination as well as no report is there. It has further been submitted that Superintendent Excise, the complainant is not at all competent to launch prosecution because he has not been authorized as per Section 69 of the Act. 2 The learned A.P.P. opposed and submitted that as per Section 69, no excise official can discharge the function so notified by the government and the Superintendent being the head of the district is duly empowered to make search and seizure. After going through the allegation in consonance with the order, there is no substantial question involved apart from the fact, hence the petition is dismissed. B.Kr. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)