JUDGMENT : The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 5-9-2003 at 4.15. p.m., the appellants were found in possession of 5 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. 3. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the appellants. 4. Heard. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that since there is no sample seal in the space provided in the copy of the forwarding note, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Krishnan H. v. State [2015 (1) KHC 822], to buttress his argument. In Krishnan. H. (supra), the court held that the absence of sample seal in the space provided in the copy of the forwarding note is sufficient reason for presuming that the sample seal was not provided in the original forwarding note. In this case, no sample seal was affixed in the space provided in the copy of the forwarding note. No evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that sample seal was provided on the original of the forwarding note. In the said circumstances, the tamper- proof despatch of the sample to the Laboratory could not be established by the prosecution and consequently, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. 6. The learned counsel has further argued that the investigation in this case was conducted and the final report was filed by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, and in the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be discharged, as the Assistant Sub Inspector was not an Abkari Officer as per SRO No. 321/96 dated 29-3-1996. 7. As per SRO 321/1996, only the officers of and above the level of Sub Inspector of Police are officers competent to exercise the powers of Abkari Officers. 7. As per SRO 321/1996, only the officers of and above the level of Sub Inspector of Police are officers competent to exercise the powers of Abkari Officers. In a similar situation, the Court in Subramanian v. State of Kerala (2010 (2) KHC 552] held that the Assistant Excise Inspector was not a competent and authorised officer under the Abkari Act, especially under Sections 4 (d) and 70 of the Abkari Act as per SRO No. 234/1967 and hence, the seizure and arrest made by the Assistant Excise Inspector was without authorisation and jurisdiction. 8. The Court in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (2) KLT 392 ] quoted the decision in Subrahmanian (supra) with approval and held that the Assistant Excise Inspectors were not empowered under the Abkari Act prior to 8-5-2009 to perform the duties under Sections 31,32,34, 35 and 38 to 53 of the Abkari Act. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that even now the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is not an Abkari Officer. In this case, PW7 conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the Court. Since PW7 was only an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who was not an authorised officer under the Abkari Act, the investigation conducted by PW7 and the final report filed by him were without jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, the committal proceedings, cognizance taken and the trial conducted on the basis of the investigation and final report filed by PW7 were without jurisdiction and consequently, the appellants are entitled to be discharged. In the result, this appeal stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below under section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act and the appellants stand discharged. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.