JUDGMENT : BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc)-I, Ernakulam, for the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: CW1, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, Aluva, and his party were on patrol at Chully in Ayyampuzha Village at about 3.00 p.m. on 26-12-2002. While so, the appellant was seen coming from the opposite side carrying a 5 litre black jerrycan. Seeing the excise party, the appellant attempted to flee away leaving the jerrycan. Soon the excise party reached him and stopped him there. On examining the jerrycan, one litre arrack was found in it. Since the appellant had committed an offence under the Abkari Act, he was arrested by CW1 preparing Ext.P2 Arrest Memo. Ext.P3 is the Intimation of Arrest. CW1 had drawn 180 ml. of arrack as sample in a 180 ml. bottle from the bulk contained in the jerrycan and sealed that bottle. The sample and the bulk of arrack contained in the jerrycan were seized by CW1 under Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant, contraband and the records were handed over to PW4, the Excise Preventive Officer, Excise Range Office, Kalady. PW4 registered Crime No.90 of 2002 of that Range Office in respect of the occurrence. Ext.P6 is the Crime and Occurrence Report thus prepared by PW4. He had produced the appellant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perumbavoor, along with the Remand Report. The properties were produced by PW5, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Kalady, before that court. Ext.P7 is the List of Property and Ext.P8 is the Forwarding Note. Ext.P9 is the Certificate of Chemical Analysis issued from the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Ernakulam. Ext.P10 is the Site Plan showing the place of occurrence issued by PW6, the Village Officer, Ayyampuzha. The properties were produced by PW5, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Kalady, before that court. Ext.P7 is the List of Property and Ext.P8 is the Forwarding Note. Ext.P9 is the Certificate of Chemical Analysis issued from the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Ernakulam. Ext.P10 is the Site Plan showing the place of occurrence issued by PW6, the Village Officer, Ayyampuzha. The investigation of the case was taken over by PW7, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur. He had questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. He had completed the investigation and submitted the Final Report before the court. 4. The learned Magistrate, after complying with the required legal formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Ernakulam. Later, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc)-I, Ernakulam. The court below framed a charge against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 on their side. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances shown against him. The defence has not adduced any evidence. The court below, after considering the matter, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. He was heard on the question of sentence and imposed the sentence on him. 5. The appellant has raised various contentions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. This Court need not go into all those contentions for disposing of this appeal. The offence alleged in this case was detected by CW1, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, Aluva. He was a competent officer for doing the same. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the alleged occurrence in this case had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of CW1, precisely, within the local limits of the Excise Range Office, Kalady, and the Excise Range Office, Kalady, is within the territorial limits of the Excise Circle Office, Aluva. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW7, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW7, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW7 was an incompetent officer to conduct the investigation and to submit the Final Report in this case as the occurrence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Excise Circle Office, Aluva, and not within the jurisdiction of PW7. 6. The investigation of a case of this nature can be conducted by an Abkari Officer notified under Section 4 of the Abkari Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Notification, G.O.(MS)No.356/67/Rev. dated 10-08-1967, issued as S.R.O.No.234/67 was governing the field at the relevant time. Going by this Notification, PW7, being the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur, had no jurisdiction to conduct the investigation of the case exercising the powers under Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act. As per S.R.O. No.234/67, the Circle Inspectors of Excise are empowered to perform the acts and duties mentioned under Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act only within the areas for which they are appointed. Therefore, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, Aluva, could have conducted the investigation of the case as the occurrence had taken place within the area for which he was appointed. But, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur, was not permitted to exercise such powers within the area for which Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, Aluva, was appointed. In short, as the occurrence had taken place within the area for which Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, Aluva, was appointed, PW7, being the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur, cannot exercise jurisdiction. This position is quite clear from Clause 8 of the Schedule to S.R.O. No.234/67. As per Clause 8, the powers under Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act which include the powers of investigation and submission of Final Report after investigation had been given to all officers of the Excise Department not below the rank of Excise Inspectors exercising jurisdiction within the areas for which they are appointed. The occurrence in this case had taken place within the territorial limits of the Excise Range Office, Kalady and this Range Office is within the territorial limits of the Excise Circle Office, Aluva. The occurrence in this case had taken place within the territorial limits of the Excise Range Office, Kalady and this Range Office is within the territorial limits of the Excise Circle Office, Aluva. Therefore, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Kalady, or the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, Aluva, or the officers of higher ranks empowered can exercise the powers of investigation and submission of Final Report. Such a power cannot be exercised by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Excise Circle Office, North Paravur, as such a power is not conferred on him under the Notification issued as S.R.O. No.234/67. 7. Since the investigation of the case had been conducted by an incompetent officer, the court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint filed based on such investigation. Consequently, the court below could not have framed a charge against the appellant as it was without jurisdiction. The trial which followed after framing the charge must be treated as non-est in the eye of law as it was done without jurisdiction. As the trial was conducted without jurisdiction by the court below, it cannot end either in conviction or in acquittal. The appellant was entitled to be discharged as provided under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant are liable to be set aside. He is entitled to be discharged in this case. 8. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant are set aside. He is discharged and set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant as directed by this Court shall be returned to him. This appeal is allowed.