IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.403 of 2002 1..Shiv Kumar Kishorepuria 2.Sajjan Kumar Kishorepuria 3.Ravi Shankar Agarwal….Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer,Patna 3.Food Inspector/officer,of Civil Surgeon, Patna …….Opposite parties For the Petitioners:Mr.Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the State:Mr.S.Azim,Addl.P.P. ----------- 6 13.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the case, accusation is about petitioners having no license from the authorities of Food Adulteration Act for manufacturing spiced country liquor. Admittedly, in the case there was no license issued in favour of the petitioners. Here, the only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is if any license was necessary from the authorities of Food Adulteration for manufacturing and sell of Bihar spiced country spirit liquor. The State failed to show any provision on the point. Otherwise, a license is necessary from the quality control in the field of manufacturing of liquor. A warning is also essential even consuming the spiced country liquor. So, more caution is taken while the liquor is manufactured. Again, submission is, if necessary, it comes 2 within competence of the State Government, but in the absence of any rules on the point, prosecution and conviction for the same is not liable to be sustained. In the facts discussed above, this revision is allowed and cognizance taken under Section 16(1)A,7(iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 and Section 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules,1955 is set aside. SKBOSE (Mandhata Singh)