Mullick, J.In this case the accused was prosecuted u/s 263, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 for not, taking out a license for carrying on an offensive trade, the trade in question being the pounding of tobacco leaf for the manufacture of hooka tobacco.

2. I have not been shown any resolution of the Municipal Commissioners at a meeting fixing the limits within which the manufacture has to be carried on and requiring the manufacturer to take out a license. All that I have is a notice issued upon the accused to take out a license and it has not even been found that the manufacture is one from which offensive or unwholesome smells may arise. Clause (14), Section 259, requires proof of this unless the manufacture has been declared by the Local Government to be dangerous or offensive.

3. In the present case the finding is that the manufacture is not one giving rise to offensive or unwholesome smells. That concludes the matter and in my opinion the acquittal was right. I have also to observe that it is not the practice of the Court to interfere in revision against acquittals for which a special procedure has been provided by the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The proper course for the commissioners was to approach the Government to appeal in regular form against the acquittal.