are appointed. The occurrence in this case had taken place within the limits of the Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi. Therefore, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi, can exercise the powers of investigation. Such a power cannot be exercised by an Excise Inspector attached to the Excise Circle Office, Tirur, as such a power is not conferred on him under the Notification issued as SRO No.234/67. But, such a power is conferred on the Excise Inspector appointed in a particular Excise Range Office. In this case, PW1 or PW7, being the Excise Inspectors, Excise Range Office, Parappanangadi, had jurisdiction to exercise the powers of investigation as the occurrence took place within the territorial limits of their jurisdiction. But, PWs 5 and 6, the Excise Inspectors attached to Excise Circle Office, Tirur, had no such jurisdiction going by the Notification issued by the Government. Since the investigation of the case had been conducted by incompetent officers, the Court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint filed based on such investigation. Consequently, the Court could not have framed charge against the appellant as it was without jurisdiction. The trial which followed after framing the charge must be treated as non est in the eye of law as it was done without jurisdiction. As the trial was conducted without jurisdiction the Court below, it cannot end either in conviction or in acquittal. The appellant was entitled to be discharged as provided under S.227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below against the appellant are liable to be set aside. He is entitled to be discharged in this case.
