Judgment : This is a revision filed by the petitioner who is convicted under Sec.16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day, i.e., till the rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs.500 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused is the salesman of Broke Bond India Limited, Kothapet Depot, Guntur. The petitioner was storing and selling coffee and tea powder of that company without paying licence fee and running the trade. A notice therefore was issued to him on 12.2.1988 directing to pay licence fee of Rs.50 plus belated fee of Rs.13 totalling to an amount of Rs.63, but the petitioner did not pay the same. Thus the petitioner has violated Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector filed the complaint stating the above facts. The petitioner when examined denied the offence. The complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and another as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the petitioner D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 marked. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record found that the petitioner has contravened Rule 50 as he was running the trade without obtaining licence. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court which confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the said appeal. Against that judgment, the present appeal is filed. 3. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is a fact that the conducting of business in food articles without obtaining licence as contemplated under Rule 50 amounts to an offence but the authorities have not framed any rules as to who is the licensing authority, what is the prescribed pro forma for issuing licence and how much amount has to be paid for obtaining licence etc., and therefore, in the absence of any rules the petitioner is not obliged to obtain licence and there is no contravention of Rule 50 on the part of the petitioner and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that even though there are no rules when the Food Inspector has issued notice the petitioner ought to have paid the licence fee and obtained licence and therefore there are no merits in the present revision and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the above stated circumstances, the only point to be considered is whether the petitioner is guilty of the said offence for not obtaining licence. 6. To appreciate the above contentions it is relevant to extract Rule 50 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: “Rule 50. Conditions of licence: (1) No person shall manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any of the following articles of food, except under a licence; (a) to (v) (1-A) One licence may be issued by the licensing authority for one or more articles of food and also for different establishment or premises in the same local area. (1-B) The name and address of the Director or Manager, as the case may be, nominated by the company under Rule 12-B shall be mentioned in the licence. (2) The State Government or the local authority shall appoint licensing authorities. (3) A licensing authority may, with the approval of the State Government or the local authority by an order in writing, delegate the power to sign licences and such other powers as may be specified in the order to any other person under his control. (4) If the articles of food are manufactured, stored or exhibited for sale at different premises situated in more than one local area, separate applications shall be made and a separate licence shall be issued in respect of such premises not falling within the same local area; Provided that the itinerant vendors who have no specified place of business shall be licensed to conduct business in a particular area within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority. (5) Before granting a licence of manufacture, stock or exhibition or any of the articles of food in respect of which a licence is required, the licensing authority shall inspect the premises and satisfy, itself that it is free from sanitary defects. (5) Before granting a licence of manufacture, stock or exhibition or any of the articles of food in respect of which a licence is required, the licensing authority shall inspect the premises and satisfy, itself that it is free from sanitary defects. The applicant for the licence shall have to make such alteration in the premises as may be required by the licensing authority for the grant of a licence; Provided that the licensing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to grant a licence, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of public health. (6) “”””.. (7) Proprietors of hotels, restaurants and other food stalls (including immovable and itinerant food stalls) who sell or expose for sale savouries, sweets or other article of food shall put up a notice-board containing separate lists of the articles which have been cooked in ghee, edible oil (vanaspati) and other facts for the information of the intending purchasers. (8) ………….. (9) No licensee shall employ in his work any person who is suffering from infectious or contageo us loathsome disease. (10) …………. (11) …………. (12) ………. (13) …………. (14) ………. (15) Every licensee who sells any food shall display a notice board containing the nature of the articles which he is exposing or offering for sale.” 7. From a reading of the Rule 50 it is clear that no person can conduct business of food articles without obtaining licence. 8. This case was adjourned for 3 or 4 times to enable the Public Prosecutor to find out whether any Rules are framed as contemplated under the Act and the learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that till now the Rules have not come into force. 9. Sec.24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowers the State Government to make rules. This case was adjourned for 3 or 4 times to enable the Public Prosecutor to find out whether any Rules are framed as contemplated under the Act and the learned Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that till now the Rules have not come into force. 9. Sec.24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowers the State Government to make rules. As per Clause (b) of Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.24 of the State Government have to make rules prescribing the forms of licence for the manufacture for sale for the storage, for the sale and for the distribution of articles of food or any specified article of food or class of articles of food, the form of application for such licences, the conditions subject to which such licences may be issued, the authority empowered to issue the same, the fees payable therefor, the deposit of any sum as security for the performance of the conditions of the licences and the circumstances under which such licences or security may be suspended, cancelled or forfeited. 10. In this case, there is no dispute that no rules are framed under Sec.24(2)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Apart from it the petitioner has addressed a letter Ex.D6 to the respondent, pending the appeal, to know whether it is necessary to obtain a licence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for manufacture, storage and sale of Tea and Coffee Powder and he received a reply letter Ex.D7 stating that at present no licence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules under it to manufacture, store, sell, distribute or exhibit for sale of any article of food is necessary in Andhra Pradesh State. 11. It is well settled principle that when no authority is appointed to issue licence and no rules are framed regarding other conditions governing the issue of licence it is not incumbent upon the persons to take licence because he will not be in a position to approach the authorities. 12. It is also not the case of the respondent that in the absence of Rules they have issued any instructions or any other proceedings prescribing the proforma or other conditions for issuing of licence. Therefore, when there are no Rules it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain licence. 13. 12. It is also not the case of the respondent that in the absence of Rules they have issued any instructions or any other proceedings prescribing the proforma or other conditions for issuing of licence. Therefore, when there are no Rules it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain licence. 13. On a reading of Rule 50 together with Sec.24(2)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is clear that the petitioner will have to obtain licence only if the Rules are framed. So when the Rules are not framed it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain licence. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated Rule 50 of the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are set aside and the find amount if any paid shall be returned to the petitioner. 14. The criminal revision case is accordingly allowed.