The Assistant Excise Commissioner cannot authorize Excise Officers to investigate crimes outside their territorial jurisdiction as per SRO 234/1967.

JUDGMENT

The question that arises for consideration is whether the Assistant Excise Commissioner is entitled to authorise an Excise Officer to exercise jurisdiction to investigate into a crime outside the latter's territorial jurisdiction.

2. The appellant was the accused in S.C.No.5/2012 on the files of the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara. He was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months, apart from a fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

3. The prosecution alleges that on 26.03.2008 at 11 am, the accused was found in possession of 3.545 Kgs. of Ganja in a white plastic cover and he thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P12 apart from MO1. After analysing the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offences alleged and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.

5. Adv. T. J. Maria Goretti, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution case is without any legal basis, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. It was submitted that though the alleged offence was detected by PW2 within the territorial limits of Kuttippuram, it was PW5 - the Excise Circle Inspector of Thirurangady, who had conducted the investigation and filed the final report and as the latter was not an empowered officer to conduct investigation in Kuttipuram, the entire investigation was done by an incompetent officer. According to the Counsel, on merits also, the prosecution was not able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant, and hence, the impugned judgment is perverse and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

6. Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Assistant Excise Commissioner is empowered to authorise the Excise Circle Inspector of another territorial jurisdiction to investigate into a crime is evident from SRO 234/1967. It was further submitted that as the Assistant Excise Commissioner had authorised PW5 to conduct the investigation as per Ext.P12, PW5 was competent to conduct the investigation and file the final report in the instant case and hence the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.

7. While appreciating the rivals submissions mentioned above, it has to be appreciated that the prosecution alleged that the accused was found in possession of ganja on 26.02.2008, within the limits of the Excise Circle of Kuttipuram. After the Excise Inspector, Kuttipuram registered the crime, investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Thirurangadi who claimed to have been authorised by the Assistant Excise Commissioner as per Ext.P12 to conduct the investigation. Concededly, if not for Ext.P12, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Thirurangadi, was otherwise not entitled to investigate a crime detected within the limits of Kuttipuram, as his territorial jurisdiction was within the limits of Thirurangadi Excise Circle. It is thus the question mentioned in the prefatory portion of this judgment requires an answer.

8. Section 7 of the NDPS Act empowers the State Government to appoint officers with such designations as it thinks fit for the purpose of the NDPS Act and they shall be, subject to