JUDGMENT : C.S.Sudha, J. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant who is the accused in S.C.No.1070/2012 on the file of the Court of Session, Kasaragod challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 (the Act). 2. The prosecution case is that on 27/12/2011 at about 06:45 p.m. the accused was found in possession of 15 bottles of 'John Bull Whisky' manufactured in Karnataka with each bottle having a capacity of 180ml. The accused was also found in possession of 21 plastic bottles of 'Honey Guide Brandy', each bottle having a capacity of 90ml each, which liquor was manufactured in Goa. The accused was found in possession of the aforesaid quantity of Indian made foreign liquor for sale. The place of occurrence is the courtyard of his house bearing no.XIII/232(VI/331) of Delampady Grama Panchayath, Ponoram, Adhur village. Hence, the accused as per the final report/charge sheet was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Act. 3. Crime no.477/2011, Adhur police station, that is, Ext.P4 FIR was registered by PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Adhur police station, the detecting officer in this case. PW1 had conducted the initial investigation. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by CW9 who completed the investigation and submitted the final report/charge sheet before the jurisdictional magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned Section by the accused. 4. On appearance of the accused, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Kasaragod. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.1070/2012 and thereafter made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Kasaragod for trial and disposal. The trial court on 03/03/2014, framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. 6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offence contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Act and hence sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of ?1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Act. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused/appellant by the trial court are sustainable or not. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant advanced three main arguments against the prosecution case- (i) no arrest intimation had been prepared by PW1; (ii) violation of Section 53A of the Act as certification has been done by judicial magistrate and (iii) Ext.P8 inventory report has not been prepared by the authorised officer. In support of the arguments reference was made to the dictums in Santhosh T.A. v. State of Kerala, 2017(5) KHC 107 ; Kusuma v. State of Kerala, 2022 KHC 556 ; Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023(3) KHC 97 and an unreported decision, that is, K.V.Suresh v. State of Kerala, Crl.R.P.No.685 of 2016 dated 07/12/2023. 11. It is true that no arrest intimation has been prepared in this case. PW1, the detecting officer deposed that the accused had been arrested from the courtyard of his house and that his relatives were intimated of the arrest. This part of his testimony of PW1 has not been challenged. 11. It is true that no arrest intimation has been prepared in this case. PW1, the detecting officer deposed that the accused had been arrested from the courtyard of his house and that his relatives were intimated of the arrest. This part of his testimony of PW1 has not been challenged. Moreover, merely because there is an omission to prepare the arrest intimation by the police will not always result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the evidence on record is satisfactory to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, I will consider whether the evidence on record is sufficient/satisfactory to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 12. Section 53A of the Act deals with disposal of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs or articles etc. This section is invoked only when it is necessary to dispose of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs, articles etc. which have been specified by way of a notification published in the Gazette. Disposal under the Section can be made only by the authorised officer referred to in Section 67B of the Act. The authorised officer has to make an application to the magistrate concerned. One of the two purposes for which an application is made is to request the magistrate to allow the authorised officer to take samples of the seized liquor, intoxicating drug or article in the presence of the magistrate. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant relying on the dictums in Santhosh T.A. and Sathyan (Supra) argued that certification of the inventory as contemplated under Section 53A can be done only by an executive magistrate. However, in this case the certification has been done by a judicial magistrate who is not empowered or authorised to do so and hence it is an illegality. 12.1. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor relied on the dictum in Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 KHC 493 : (1982) 3 SCC 200 wherein the question that was considered was whether a superior authority could exercise a power vested in a subordinate authority. In the said case, the petitioner therein an Overseer in the Punjab Public Works Department was charged with offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the petitioner therein an Overseer in the Punjab Public Works Department was charged with offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (the PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the authority competent to remove him from his office was the Chief Engineer and as such sanction for prosecution could be accorded only by him and by nobody else. In the said case sanction had been accorded by the Chief Minister and therefore it was contended that there was no sanction in the eye of law and that the entire proceeding was vitiated on that ground and the same should be quashed. Section 6(1)(c) of the PC Act contemplates that the sanctioning authority must be competent to remove the person from his office. As per the relevant Rules applicable to the petitioner therein, the appointing authority was the Chief Engineer. Therefore, the removing authority could not be inferior or, subordinate in rank to the Chief Engineer in view of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The Chief Minister concerned was held to be not inferior or subordinate to the Chief Engineer. Article 311(1) enjoins that no person who is the member of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Under this Article, the authority to remove should not be subordinate to that by which he was appointed. That does not mean that the power cannot be exercised by an authority higher than the appointing one. A sanction under Section 6(1)(c) of the PC Act as it existed prior to 12/08/1952 may be given either by the very authority who appointed the public servant or by an authority who is directly superior to such appointing authority in the same department. Such sanction is also legal if it is given by an authority who is equal in rank or grade with the appointing authority. Sanction is invalid if it is given by one who is subordinate to or lower than the appointing authority. Such sanction is also legal if it is given by an authority who is equal in rank or grade with the appointing authority. Sanction is invalid if it is given by one who is subordinate to or lower than the appointing authority. Therefore the argument is that a judicial magistrate is not inferior or subordinate to an executive magistrate and hence certification of the inventory done by the judicial magistrate would not make the certification invalid in the eye of law. 13. In Santhosh T.A. (Supra) the question that was inter alia considered was whether there was any provision(s) in the Act for taking two samples from the contraband seized. The effect of certification of the inventory by a judicial magistrate never arose for consideration in the said case. The decision nowhere says that an inventory certified by a judicial magistrate is illegal or inadmissible. The learned Single Judge only held that certification of the inventory is only an administrative function and therefore it is the duty of the executive magistrate to do it. That does not mean that the certification done by a judicial magistrate is illegal or invalid in the eye of law. 14. In this context I refer to the dictum of the Apex court in Union of India v. Mohanlal, 2016 KHC 6069 : (2016) 3 SCC 379 which dealt with the scope of a similar provision, that is, Section 52A in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which indicates that the certification of the inventory, list of samples drawn etc. is a function to be exercised by a judicial magistrate. is a function to be exercised by a judicial magistrate. Such an indication is there in the direction given by the Apex court contained in paragraph no.14 of the judgment which reads as follows - “We are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52-A. We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs … … ...” (Emphasis supplied) (See also Balakrishna Rai v. State of Kerala, 2020 (3) KHC 286 and Abhilash v. State of Kerala, 2021 KHC 2446). 15. The third argument is that as per Section 53A of the Act, the inventory is to be prepared by an officer authorised under Section 67B. Here, the Deputy Excise Commissioner is the authorised officer. However, PW1 deposed that he had prepared Ext.P8 inventory report and submitted the same before the Deputy Excise Commissioner who had affixed his signature on the same. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P8 inventory report was not prepared by the authorised officer. Had it be prepared by the authorised officer and certified by a magistrate, then as per Section 53A(5) of the Act, the inventory would have been primary evidence in respect of the offence. As the inventory has not been prepared by an authorised officer, there is violation of a mandatory statutory provision. 16. Further, Ext.P3 seizure mahazar does not say that the bottles in which the samples were taken or that the bottles containing the remaining liquor were packed or sealed. The mahazar only says that PW1 had labelled the bottles, which label contained the signature of the accused, witnesses and PW1. Ext.P6 property list on the other hand says that the cap of the bottles were wrapped in cloth ; tied with twine and label containing the signature of PW1, the accused and witnesses was affixed. There is no such case in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Ext.P6 property list on the other hand says that the cap of the bottles were wrapped in cloth ; tied with twine and label containing the signature of PW1, the accused and witnesses was affixed. There is no such case in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. In these circumstances, the testimony of the official witnesses alone which is available for proving the prosecution case cannot be made the basis for convicting the accused. Hence, I find that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed against the accused/appellant by the trial court is set aside. The accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. He is set at liberty and his bail bond shall stand cancelled. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.