P.D. RAJAN, J.

1. The revision petitioner was convicted by the trial court under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. An appeal preferred was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Kasaragod, confirming the conviction passed by the trial court. Challenging the said judgments, the accused preferred this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.8.1997, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station was conducting patrol duty within his jurisdiction. When he reached at Trikaripur, the revision petitioner was found near a waiting shed at Olavara with a suitcase. He intercepted and interrogated the revision petitioner, after that he opened the suitcase in which he found 30 bottles of Karanataka made arrack each containing 180 ml. At about 4.45 p.m., the revision petitioner was arrested by the A.S.I. and the arrack with bottles and suit case were taken into custody after preparing a mahazar. He took two samples from the bottles and reached at the Police Station, registered a crime No. 177/1997 under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. After completing the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station laid charge.

3. In the trial court, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Ext.P1 to P5 and admitted MOs1 and 2 in evidence. DW1 was examined for defence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the revision petitioner, when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge convicted the accused, aggrieved by that, he preferred an appeal before Sessions Court, in which the conviction was confirmed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the detection and arrest of the accused was made by a non abkari officer, who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station. The Government from time to time had notified the officers to perform duties of Abkari officers in which Assistant Sub Inspector is not mentioned. Moreover, the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police station, who verified the investigation of ASI and submitted a final report before the court, was not examined as a witness in the trial court.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that even though PW1 is not an Abkari officer, the evidence collected by such officer is material, which is an incriminating evidence against the accused. His act is only an irregularity in investigation and the proper investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police and laid charge before Court.

6. In the light of the above argument, I have considered whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the finding of the Court below? I have perused a Government Notification issued vide S.R.O. No.321/1996 dated 29.3.1996. As per the notification, the Government of Kerala appointed all police officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in charge of Law and Order and working in the General executive branch of the Police Department was designated as Abkari officers as per Section 5 of the Abkari Act, which reads as follows:

"S.R.O.No.321/96.- In exercise of powers conferred by section 4 of the Abkari Act, I of 1077 the Government of Kerala hereby appoint all police officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in charge of Law and Order and working in the General executive branch of the Police Department and all Revenue Officers of and above the rank of Deputy Collectors to be Abkari Officers under their respective Jurisdiction for the purpose of Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 59 of the Act and to exercise all the powers and to discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on Abkari Officers, in the sections aforesaid. This notification shall come into force with immediate ef