JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 04.04.2005 of Additional Sessions Judge for trial of Abkari Act cases, Neyyattinkara in S.C No.529/2000. The appellant is the accused in the case on hand. She was tried for an offence punishable under Section 55(1) and 8(1) of the Abkari Act (for short, 'the Act'). She was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Aggrieved by the judgment as aforesaid, the accused has approached this court in the appeal on hand. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows; On 29.04.1998, the Preventive Officer of Thirupuram Range while conducting patrol duty in Kanjiramkulam Village, found a woman walking by the side of the road carrying a plastic Can. Though she attempted to flee from the spot, the Excise officials caught her. The plastic Can with her was examined. It was found to contain alcohol and was seized in the presence of witnesses. The accused was arrested and a seizure mahazar was prepared from the spot. Thereafter, the liquor alongwith the arrested accused were produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara. A crime and occurrence report was prepared by the Excise Inspector of Thirupuram range and that was also forwarded to the Court along with the seizure mahazar. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and on conclusion of it, a final report was laid before the above Court. Since the offence alleged was triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefrom, the case was made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara for trial and disposal. 2. The accused entered appearance on summons being served on her. After a preliminary hearing, charge was framed for the offences for which she was chargesheeted. The charge was read over to her and explained. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial was held and PWs 1 to 5 were examined and MO1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The accused denied all questions put to her and pleaded innocence. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The accused denied all questions put to her and pleaded innocence. Grounds having not been made out to record an order of acquittal, the accused was called upon to enter on her defence. On the side of the accused, a witness was examined as DW1. On appreciation and evaluation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced her by the judgment under challenge. 3. Section 4 of the Abkari Act (for short 'the Act') confers power on the Government to issue Notification in the official Gazette to appoint officers to take necessary actions under Sections 40 to 53 of the Act. Section 40 of the Act speaks about procedure to be complied with by an officer arresting a person and seizing articles. Sub-section (3) of Section 40 provides that every person arrested under Section 31 or Section 34 or Section 35 of the Act shall be produced before, and article seized under Section 31 or Section 34 shall be forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest Police Station or to an officer empowered under Section 5A, or to an Abkari Inspector. Sub-section (5) provides that the authority or officer to whom any article is forwarded under Sub-section (3) shall with all convenient despatch take necessary steps in accordance with law for disposal of such article. Sections 42 to 49 of the Act speak about the investigation to be conducted by an Abkari Officer empowered by the Notification issued by Government under Section 4 of the Act and the applicability of the law for the time being in force in Criminal Courts for summoning witnesses for questioning and recording of statements as part of the investigation process. Section 50 provides that the investigation into an Abkari Offence shall be completed without unnecessary delay and on completion, a final report shall be prepared and forwarded to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C'). 4. Section 50 provides that the investigation into an Abkari Offence shall be completed without unnecessary delay and on completion, a final report shall be prepared and forwarded to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C'). 4. Section 50A provides that on receipt of the final report from an Abkari Officer, the Magistrate shall inquire into such offence and if it finds on a scrutiny that the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions, to commit the case to Court of Sessions or else to try the person accused of, in like manner as if the case is instituted on a police report as provided under Cr.P.C. Section 53 directs all officers in charge of police stations to take charge of and keep in safe custody pending the order of a Magistrate or an Abkari Inspector, all articles seized under this Act which may be delivered to him and shall allow any Abkari Officer who may accompany such articles to the Police Station, or who may be deputed for the purpose by his superior officer, to affix his seal on such articles and to take samples of and from them. All samples so taken shall also be directed to be sealed with the seal of the officer in charge of the police station. 5. It is discerned from the above discussion on various provisions of the Act that it is the prerogative of an Abkari Officer, Notified under the Act to comply with the directives contained under Sections 41 to 50 of the Act. The Court's role only starts with receipt of the accused and the properties seized. The court receiving it shall hold trial if the offence incorporated in the final report laid before it is triable by it. If the offence is triable only by a Court of Sessions, it is the duty of that court to commit the same to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 6. The Magistrate's role is solely confined to holding of pre-trial procedures and to try the case. It is the bounden duty of the detecting officer to arrest the accused, seize the contraband and to draw sample of the liquor for the purpose of forwarding for chemical analysis. 6. The Magistrate's role is solely confined to holding of pre-trial procedures and to try the case. It is the bounden duty of the detecting officer to arrest the accused, seize the contraband and to draw sample of the liquor for the purpose of forwarding for chemical analysis. The Court will seize the case only when a final report is laid before it after concluding the entire investigation procedure. Drawing of sample and analysis of it by Chemical Examiner's laboratory, being part of the investigation process, and being assigned by the Act to be done by designated officers, the court cannot assume the role. The officers who are empowered under the Act cannot delegate their power to any other officers. Similarly they cannot abstain from exercising any of the powers conferred on them by the Act and leave it to be done by the court. The court on noticing that sample was not drawn and incorporated, ought to have returned it to the investigating officer directing him to do so. The Magistrate undoubtedly has traversed its jurisdiction by issuing orders to take samples from the contraband produced before it and forwarding that to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for analysis. Magistrate's role is confined to verification of the properties produced before it after seizure, to see the correctness and its propriety. The Court having not been empowered by the Act to conduct any sort of investigation into Abkari offences, the prosecution by delegating that duty to the Court, undoubtedly has transacted illegally. The prosecution case is liable to be defeated for the reason itself. 7. When the process of drawing sample by the Court itself was found as done without authority, this Court need not delve on the contentions taken by the learned counsel for accused raising doubt on the identification of the sample by the Chemical Examiner based on sample seal. 8. In the light of the discussion above, the prosecution is liable to fail. The trial court failed to advert to the above fundamental aspect in its erroneous appreciation of evidence. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside. The accused is set at liberty after cancellation the bail bond.