Judgment.- These three appeals are filed by the State against the order ofacquittal in three cases under the Prohibition Act for having been in possessionof fermented wash and fermented toddy. The search and recovery in all the threecases was effected by the Preventive Officer and the acquittal is based on thefact that the Preventive Officer Was not competent to effect the search andrecovery. Section 37 of the Act authorises a Prohibition Officer not below such rank asthe State Government may determine to enter and search and under S.R.O. 222 of1962, Officers of the Excise Department not below the rank of Excise Inspectorsalone are to be Prohibition Officers who have the powers of a ProhibitionOfficer under the Act. The position taken by the State is that as P.W.1 was on that particular dayholding the charge of the Excise Inspector he has to be deemed an ExciseInspector. Reliance is placed on section 18 of the General Clauses Act insupport of this contention. Section 18 of the General Clauses Act can beattracted only if the subordinate is lawfully performing the duties of theExcise Inspector at the time and as the Excise Inspector cannot delegate hispowers and appoint his subordinate to exercise his functions the subordinatecannot be said to be lawfully performing his duty (vide Ram Pragas v. Emperor1).The effect of the Excise Inspector putting the Preventive Officer in chargeof his duties is only to put him in charge of the administrative matters. Thelearned Magistrate was right in holding that P.W.1 who was only put in temporarycharge of the functions of the Excise Inspector was not competent to effect thesearch, and the orders of acquittal have only to be confirmed. M.C.M. ----- Appeals dismissed.