'Bihar Prohibition Act does not apply to BIS compliant non-alcoholic drinks': Patna HC quashes FIR against Siddhi Enterprises

Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has ruled that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 does not extend to beverages that qualify as non-alcoholic under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Allowing a writ petition filed by Kumari Punam, proprietor of M/s Siddhi Enterprises, and two others, Justice Alok Kumar Pandey quashed the FIR lodged against them for allegedly selling beer disguised as energy drinks, reported LiveLaw.

“The petitioners were selling non-alcoholic substances according to the BIS standard. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any offence under the Act or that the FIR discloses any cognizable offence,” the Court observed.

According to the report, it further clarified that “on a careful consideration of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is evident that what the Act prohibits is the intoxicant or liquor containing alcohol of any strength and purity, as per the definition of ‘alcoholic’ under Section 2(3) of the Act. Simultaneously, it does not prohibit sale etc. of the non-alcoholic substances in conformity with the standard set by the BIS in view of the definition and clarification contained under Section 2(4)(6) of the Act.”

The controversy began in February 2017 after a newspaper carried a report claiming that beer was being marketed under the garb of energy drinks, with names that bore resemblance to well-known brands like “Thunder Bolt” and “Kingfisher.”

Acting on the report, the Excise Department raided the petitioner’s premises. At the spot, they seized beverages labeled WFM Super Strong 10000, Thousand Bolt, Kalalon Golden, and Kingfermer. The Sales Manager and Accountant were also taken into custody. Officials alleged the products contained alcohol ranging between 4% and 5%.

The report said the petitioners, however, argued that all their products were licensed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and had undergone regular testing in government laboratories. These tests consistently showed ethyl alcohol content ranging between 0.2% and 0.4% v/v, well within the BIS limit for “non-alcoholic beer,” which allows up to 0.5% v/v.

They also challenged the later reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which showed a higher alcohol percentage of 2.24% to 2.58%. According to them, such results stemmed from natural fermentation that took place over time and could not be attributed to any act on their part, as per the report.

In its judgment, the Court agreed with this line of reasoning, noting that criminal liability should be determined with reference to the product’s condition at the time of seizure, the report said.

LiveLaw reported since the seized samples initially displayed alcohol levels within permissible limits, the Court held that the petitioners could not be prosecuted on the basis of later fermentation.

“Since the seized samples initially showed permissible alcohol levels, the petitioners could not be prosecuted on the basis of later reports suggesting a higher content due to fermentation,” the Court has been quoted.

Consequently, the High Court concluded that the FIR neither disclosed a cognizable offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act nor justified further proceedings. It held that the continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of process of law and, therefore, quashed the FIR against Siddhi Enterprises and its staff, the report said.