JUDGMENT : The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.157/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta for an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act ('the Act' for short). 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 25.09.2002, at about 20.50 hours, the appellant was found in possession of 1½ litres of illicit arrack, in contravention of the Act and Rules, on the side of the road, deviating from Nedumbala-Koleri public road and thereby committed the above said offence. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 14.09.2007 found him guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the judgment of the court below, this appeal has been preferred. 4. According to the appellant, the lower court ought not to have relied on the false and interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant was not in actual possession of the seized articles, which were found in an abandoned state. The appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The lower court ought to have found that there was unexplained and undue delay in producing the material objects and in preparing and sending the forwarding note to the court. Therefore, the appellant prays for setting aside the judgment of the court below. 5. In this case, the appellant was intercepted along with 1½ litres of illicit arrack on 25.09.2002, at about 2.50 hours. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7, MO1 and MO2 were marked. But, no evidence was adduced by the appellant. 6. According to the prosecution, the Sub Inspector had detected the offence alleged to have committed by the accused. According to PW1, while he was on patrol duty along with police party on 25.09.2002, he had seen the appellant on the side of Nedumbala-Koleri public road, standing with a Can in his hand. The Sub Inspector inspected the Can, which was carried by him and it was found that the Can contained arrack. On searching his body, a glass was also found. The Sub Inspector arrested the accused and collected sample out of the arrack found in the Can carried by him. The Sub Inspector was examined as PW1. The Sub Inspector inspected the Can, which was carried by him and it was found that the Can contained arrack. On searching his body, a glass was also found. The Sub Inspector arrested the accused and collected sample out of the arrack found in the Can carried by him. The Sub Inspector was examined as PW1. According to his evidence, he restrained the accused and examined the contents of the Can in the presence of the witnesses. On smelling and tasting the liquid inside the Can, he found that it was arrack. The glass was concealed in the waist of the accused. PW4 arrested the accused after preparing the arrest memo, which was marked as Ext.P2. He has collected the sample of arrack in two bottles, having a capacity of 300 ml each and affixed labels containing the signature of himself, the accused and the witnesses upon them. Then, he sealed and labelled the Can with the remaining arrack also. The glass was also sealed. Thereafter, he prepared a seizure mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P3. On reaching the Police Station, he registered the case against the accused under Section 58 of the Act. Ext.P4 is the First Information Report. The contraband articles were produced before the court on 01.10.2002. PW4 has stated that MO1 articles were kept under his custody till its production before the court. Ext.P5 is the list of articles. PW4 had prepared the forwarding note requesting to send the sample for chemical analysis. Ext.P6 is the copy of the forwarding note. Ext.P7 is the chemical analysis report obtained after analysing the sample in the case. PW5 is the independent witness, who had turned hostile to the prosecution. He did not admit the signature on Ext.P3 scene mahazar, Ext.P2 arrest memo and the label upon MO2. PW2 is the witness to the scene mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P1. PW1 is the Police Constable, who had accompanied PW4 on the day. PW3 was the then Sub Inspector of Kalpetta police station, who had conducted investigation in the case. The lower court has relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the accused/ appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Act. 7. PW3 was the then Sub Inspector of Kalpetta police station, who had conducted investigation in the case. The lower court has relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the accused/ appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Act. 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that there was delay in sending sample to the court. Secondly, the Chemical Analysis Report is not clear. Thirdly, the forwarding note is only a copy and it did not contain the sample seal. So on this point, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused is entitled to get acquittal. It is an admitted fact that the accused was apprehended on 25.09.2002 along with 1 ½ litres of contraband articles. According to PW4, he collected the sample out of the Can, affixed with the seal and signature of himself, accused and witnesses. But, as per the evidence of PW4, contraband articles were produced before the court on 01.10.2002. So, there is a gross delay in producing the sample before the court. 8. In order to support the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant cited the ruling in Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector, Chelannur Range [ 2013 (3) KHC 308 ] wherein it is held that 'in the absence of satisfactory explanation by the prosecution showing the cause of delay, even delay of one day is fatal to the prosecution and therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt'. 9. In the instant case, there is a delay of four days in producing the contraband articles before the court. According to the evidence of PW4, it was kept under his safe custody. But, he has to explain that these contraband articles were produced before the court with tamper proof. Moreover, Ext.P6 is the copy of the forwarding note. It does not contain the seal, which was alleged to have affixed on the sample. So, without verifying the sample seal, the court cannot act upon Ext.P6 copy of the forwarding note. 10. But, he has to explain that these contraband articles were produced before the court with tamper proof. Moreover, Ext.P6 is the copy of the forwarding note. It does not contain the seal, which was alleged to have affixed on the sample. So, without verifying the sample seal, the court cannot act upon Ext.P6 copy of the forwarding note. 10. In order to support this case, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision held in Krishnan H. v. State [ 2015 (1) KHC 822 ] wherein it was held that 'in cases where no sample seal made available for comparison for ensuring that sample of contraband allegedly seized by the Excise Inspector from accused had reached Chemical Examiner for analysis, it has to be proved that seal affixed on sample is provided to the Chemical Examiner for comparison, in the absence of which there is no assurance that Chemical Examiner examined the sample taken from bulk allegedly seized from the accused'. 11. Here, the case of the prosecution is that seal on the bottle was in tact and found tally with the samples provided. However, no sample seal seen affixed on the space provided in the copy of the forwarding note. The absence of seal in the space provided in the copy of the forwarding note is sufficient reason for presuming that sample seal is not provided in the original forwarding note. This has been reiterated in Krishnan's case (supra). 12. Moreover, I have gone through the entire facts and evidence. PW4 is the Sub Inspector of Meppadi Police Station. The Crime No.192 of 2002 of Meppadi Police Station was registered. PW3 is the investigating officer, who was the Sub Inspector of Kalpetta Police Station and charge was submitted by PW4 before the court. 13. In Mahesh M.K v. State ( 2017 (1) KHC 120 ), it was held that 'a Police Officer appointed as an Abkari Officer as per the notification is not an Abkari Officer everywhere, that he is an Abkari Officer only within his territorial jurisdiction, and that he cannot investigate into an offence committed outside his jurisdiction even upon the orders of his superior Officers'. The same view has been reiterated in the decisions of this Court reported in Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala ( 2010 (3) KLT 471 ) and Narayankutty v. State of Kerala ( 2015(1) KHC 702 ). 14. The same view has been reiterated in the decisions of this Court reported in Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala ( 2010 (3) KLT 471 ) and Narayankutty v. State of Kerala ( 2015(1) KHC 702 ). 14. In this case, PW4 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Meppadi. Definitely, he is the “Abkari Officer” within the territorial jurisdiction of the Meppadi Police Station. PW3 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalpetta, who has investigated the case as per the direction of the S.I. of Police, Meppadi, who has no power to designate PW3 as the Abkari Officer to investigate the offence committed within the limits of the Meppadi Police Station. Here, PW3, the Abkari Officer of the Kalpetta Police Station, has conducted investigation of the abkari offence allegedly committed within the territorial limits of Meppadi Police Station. He has no power to exercise the power of the Abkari Officer outside the limits of the Kalpetta Police Station. There is no provision either in the Abkari Act or no notification was issued by the Government to confer jurisdiction to the Abkari Officers outside the jurisdictional limit. Needless to say that the Government of Kerala alone is empowered to appoint an Abkari Officer. 15. In view of the above, it is clear that the cognizance taken on the final report submitted by PW3, the S.I. of Police, Kalpetta, who has no authority to file a final report in the case, is illegal and the trial conducted and the conviction and the sentence awarded against the appellant also cannot be sustained. Therefore, it can only be set aside. In the result, the conviction and the sentence passed against the petitioner in S.C. No. 157 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kalpetta is set aside. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith.