JUDGMENT : B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(b) of the Abkari Act. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 10.03.1998 at 2.30 p.m. the appellants were found distlling arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The appellants were found in possession of seven litres of distilled arrack at the relevant time. The wash for manufacturing arrack was also found at the spot. 3. Heard. 4. The learned Advocates for the appellants have argued that since the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police had detected the offence, seized the contraband, arrested the first accused and registered the crime, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 5. It appears that PW-1 was only an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police during the relevant period. He detected the offence, seized the contraband and arrested the first accused. He had also taken the samples from the contraband and registered the crime. As per S.R.O. No. 321/96, all Police Officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of law and order and working in the General Executive Branch of the Police Department were empowered to exercise all powers and perform all duties of the Abkari officers. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not included as an Abkari Officer as per S.R.O. No. 321/96. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that thereafter also, no notification was issued making the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police as an Abkari Officer under the Act. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in Subash vs. State of Kerala, 2008 (2) KLT 1047 , held that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is not an Abkari Officer as defined under the Abkari Act. In the above said case, the Division Bench directed the final report to be returned for representation after curing the defects, if the trial was not commenced. In this case, since the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not an Abkari Officer, the seizure effected, the arrest of the first accused, the sampling and the registration of the crime by PW-1 were without authorisation and jurisdiction and in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below on the basis of the said seizure, arrest and registration of the crime, cannot be sustained. 7. 7. In the result, these Criminal Appeals stand allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellants stand acquitted. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.