ORDER :

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.65 of 2012 of the Mavelikkara Excise Range, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a), 55D and 67(B) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crime is registered on the allegation that, at about 11.15 a.m on 01.07.2012, while the Excise Circle Inspector and party were conducting the routine checking of vehicles near the Government UP Girls School on the Thattarambalam-Kayamkulam Road, the accused tried to avoid the checking by speeding away in their car. Being suspicious of the accused' action, the car was intercepted and stopped. On checking the car, two cans were found concealed between the front and rear seats. On inspection, the contents of the can was identified as spirit. Thereupon, the contraband and vehicle were seized and the accused arrested. On questioning, accused Nos.1 and 2 stated that the liquor was being transported for handing over to one Vishwananthan and hence that person was arrayed as the third accused. After completing investigation, the final report was filed and the case was numbered as SC No.167 of 2014 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara. This Crl.M.C is filed seeking to quash Annexure Al final report and all further proceedings in the sessions case.

2. Heard, Senior Advocate S.Ramesh Babu for the petitioners and Senior Public Prosecutor Renjith George for the State.

3. Learned Senior Counsel assailed the criminal proceedings mainly on two grounds;

(i) The inventory of the contraband was not prepared and submitted before the Magistrate by an authorised officer, as mandated under Section 53A(2) of the Abkari Act;

(ii) The inventory is certified by the Judicial Magistrate, whereas the competent authority to certify the inventory, as per Section 53(3), is the Executive Magistrate. In elaboration of the first contention, the following submissions were made;

Section 53A deals with disposal of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs or articles. As per Section 53A(1), the State Government may specify the liquor, intoxicating drug or article which are to be disposed of immediately after seizure by the authorised officer referred to in Section 67B. Under Section 53A(2), the authorised officer has to prepare an inventory of such liquor, intoxicating drug or article. The inventory should contain materials relevant to identify the liquor, intoxicating drug or article in any proceeding under the Act. Thereupon, the authorised officer should make an application to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to certify the correctness of the inventory. It is thus clear that the provision envisages preparation of the inventory by the authorised officer referred to in Section 67B. As per Section 67B(1), the authorised officer should be an officer not below the rank of Assistant Excise Commissioner, as notified in the Gazette by the Government. In the petitioners' case, the inventory was prepared by the Excise Range Inspector and submitted through the Excise Deputy Commissioner. In Chandran @ Chandrashekharan v. State [2016 (5) KHC 650], a learned Single Judge, after careful analysis of Section 53A and 67B categorically held that an inventory report prepared by an officer other than an authorised officer cannot be acted upon. The above position is reiterated in Balakrishna Rai v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (3) KHC 286], Abhilash v. State of Kerala [2021 KHC 2446] and Kusuma v State of Kerala [2022 KHC 556].

4. To drive home the second contention, reference is made to Section 3(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as under;

“3. Construction of references.

(4) Where, under any law, other than this Code, the function exercisable by a Magistrate relate to matters,—

(a) which involve the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any Court, they