Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Manjeri, for the offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of 1 lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the conviction and sentence so passed by the court below, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: PW1, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi, and his party were on patrol at Pacherippadam in Thenhipalam Village, at about 05.30 p.m. on 04-02-1999. While so, the appellant was found in possession of about 16 litres of wash in a 20 litre jerrycan. Since the appellant had committed an offence under the Abkari Act, he was arrested then and there by PW1 preparing Ext.P1 Arrest Memo. The jerrycan containing the wash was seized by PW1 under Ext.P2 Seizure Mahazar in the presence of witnesses. PW1 had drawn 300 ml. of wash in a 375 ml. bottle as sample from the bulk contained in the jerrycan. Both the sample bottle and the jerrycan were labelled and sealed. Thereafter, PW1, reached the Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi, with the appellant and the contraband and registered Crime No.1 of 1999 of that Range Office in respect of the occurrence. Ext.P3 is the Crime and Occurrence Report thus prepared by PW1. He had produced the appellant and the properties before the court on the next day. Ext.P5 is the List of Property and Ext.P4 is the copy of the Forwarding Note. The initial investigation of the case had been conducted by PW5, the Excise Inspector, Excise Circle Office, Tirur. He had questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. The investigation was continued by PW6, the Excise Inspector, Excise Circle Office, Tirur. He had also questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. He had completed the investigation and prepared the Final Report. PW7, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi, had submitted the Final Report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi.

4. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Manjeri, and, from there, it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Tirur. A charge was framed against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. Later, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Manjeri. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P8 and MO.1 on their side. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He had denied all the incriminating circumstances shown against him. The defence had not adduced any evidence. The court below, after considering the matter, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. He was heard on the question of sentence and imposed the sentence on him.

5. The appellant has raised various contentions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged offence in this case had been detected by PW1. He was a competent officer for doing the same. But, the investigation of the case had been conducted by PWs. 5 and 6. They were the Excise Inspectors attached to the Excise Circle Office, Tirur, at the relevant time. They were not competent officers for conducting the investigation as per the Notification issued by the Government of Kerala under Section 4 of the Abkari Act empowering various officers for discharging various duties under the Abkari Act, contends the learned counsel.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Notification, G.O.MS. No. 356/67/Rev. dated 10-08-1967, issued as S.R.O.No.234/67 was governing the field at the rele