ORDER : 

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filedunder Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod as per the judgment dated 07.12.2013 in S.C.No.472/2011, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod, as per judgment dated 08.04.2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 202/2013. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.05.2010, while the Preventive Officer attached to the Badiadka Excise Range was on patrol duty, the accused was allegedly found in possession of 5 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Consequently, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 8(2) read with Section 8(1) of the .

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. Since the court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to enter his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the defence. However, one document produced by the defence was marked as Ext.D1.

4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) read with Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.202/2013 before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kasaragod, upon reappreciation of the evidence, confirmed the findings and sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.

6. Heard Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the entire prosecution is vitiated on account of a lack of competence on the part of the detecting officer to register the crime. According to the learned counsel, the case was registered by a Preventive Officer who, during the relevant period, was not notified as an “Abkari Officer” under the provisions of the Abkari Act. It was argued that in the absence of any notification or Government Order authorising a Preventive Officer to register crimes under the , the registration of the crime itself is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the final report submitted pursuant thereto and all further proceedings based on such registration are legally unsustainable. On the said ground alone, the accused, according to the learned counsel, is entitled to an acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the trial court as well as the