ORDER : (K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.) This criminal revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod in Crl.A.No.288/2011. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.57/2007 of Kasaragod Excise Range registered for offence punishable under Section 55(a)of the Abkari Act. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 04.09.2007 the accused was found carrying 10 litres of arrack at Olayathaduku road in Kudlu village. 4. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.one lakh and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 5. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. Impugning the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this revision. 6. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked. PW1 is the Excise Inspector who detected the offence. PW2 is the Preventive Officer who accompanied PW1 while detecting the offence. PW3 is the independent witness. PW4 Assistant Excise Inspector conducted the investigation and filed final report before the learned Magistrate. 7. Thereafter, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After full fledged trial, the Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 8. I have heard Adv. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor and Adv.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order is legally sustainable and no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in this matter. He further submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in alleging and proving the charge against the revision petitioner. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal, irregular and improper. Both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to note the illegalities and improprieties in this case. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly within the four corners of the statute. Suspicion, however strong it may be, it would not be a substitute for proof. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly within the four corners of the statute. Suspicion, however strong it may be, it would not be a substitute for proof. The impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. 12. I have heard the rival submission of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly urged four grounds. The first submission by the learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused is that, the investigation in this case was conducted by Assistant Excise Inspector. The Assistant Excise Inspector is not authorized to conduct investigation in an Abkari offence. The learned Public Prosecutor resisted this argument contending that, as per Government Order - SRO 361/2009 dated 08.05.2009, the Assistant Excise Inspector is authorized to conduct investigation in an abkari offence. In view of that Government order, I do not find any force in the said argument. 14. The second submission by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that, in this case investigation was conducted by a subordinate officer. The detection was done by PW1, who is an Excise Inspector, but the investigation was conducted by an officer subordinate to Excise Officer ie., Assistant Excise Officer. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jinto v. State of Kerala [2023 KLT Online 2004], wherein this Court observed that, the investigation should be conducted either by an officer having equal rank or a higher rank. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder. “18. PW8-the detecting officer was the Excise Circle Inspector. But, investigation was done by PW9-the Excise Range Officer, who was his subordinate. When the detection is done by a superior officer, the subordinate officer, who is entrusted with the investigation, will be in a delicate position and he may find it difficult to go against the report of his superior officer, even if some facts comes to his way during the course of investigation, which goes against the detection and seizure. When detection is by a superior officer, investigation done by a sub-ordinate officer causes prejudice to the accused. When detection is by a superior officer, investigation done by a sub-ordinate officer causes prejudice to the accused. So it is always preferable and desirable that in a case detected by a superior officer, investigation should be done by an officer of higher rank or even of same rank.” 15. The very purpose of investigation itself is that, rather the case detected by an officer is to be rechecked or verified by another independent officer, if there is any bias or prejudice to the accused, can thereby be avoided. In this case, the investigation was done by an officer subordinate to the detecting officer. 16. The third contention by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the investigation in this case was done after a lapse of two years. The delay cause in investigation, ie., particularly with regard to the questioning of the material witnesses and their statements, after a gap of two years, would be fatal to the prosecution story. That itself cuts the very root of the prosecution story. 17. Before further discussion, it may be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Abkari Act. Section 173(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that investigation should be completed without unnecessary delay. “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation .— (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (1A) The investigation in relation to 3 [an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E] from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.] (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating— (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. [(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under 2 [ sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].] (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report— (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). 50. Report of Abkari Officer gives jurisdiction to a competent Magistrate . - (1) Every investigation into the offence under this Act shall be completed without necessary delay. (2) As soon as investigation into the offences under this Act is completed, the Abkari Officer shall forward a Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in accordance with sub section (2) of section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 18. On going through Section 173(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 50(1) of the Abkari Act, it is crystal clear that, an investigation in an offence be completed without unnecessary delay. In the instant case, the questioning of the material witnesses as a part of investigation was started after a gap of two years, which casts serious doubts in the prosecution story. 19. In Jinto ’s case (supra), it is held that, when there is unexplained delay in completing investigation, same is fatal to the prosecution. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “20. In the case on hand, though the detection was on 17.06.2006, the witnesses were questioned by the investigating officer in the year 2009 i.e., after 3 years of detection, and prosecution has not offered any explanation for that delay. The final report also was laid against the revision petitioner after three years of the incident. 21. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why there was delay in completing the investigation and filing the final report. The final report also was laid against the revision petitioner after three years of the incident. 21. No explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why there was delay in completing the investigation and filing the final report. Where there is unexplained delay in completing investigation and filing the final report, the same is fatal to the prosecution, [Reliance placed on Krishnan H. v. State of Kerala (2015 (2) KLT SN 8 (C.No. 11) = 2015 (1) KHC 822 ); Chandran v. State ( 2016 (4) KLT 727 = 2016 (5) KHC 650 ).” 20. In the decision in Moothedath Sivadasan & Another v. State of Kerala [ 2021 KLT 744 ], it is held as under: “The occurrence in this case was on 15.06.2000 and the final report was filed on 18.07.2002. There was inordinate delay in filing the final report before the court. As per S. 50 of the Act, every investigation into the offences under the Act shall be completed without unnecessary delay. As soon as investigation into the offences under the Act is completed, the Abkari Officer is obliged to forward a report in accordance with sub-s. (2) of S. 173 of the Cr. P.C. to a Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence on a police report. In this case, the inordinate delay in filing the final report before the court has not been explained by the prosecution. Further, the then S.I. of Police, Iritty who filed the final report before the court, was not examined as a witness for the prosecution.” 21. This Court in the decision in Gangadharan v. State of Kerala [ 2024(1) KHC 111 ] observed that unexplained delay in completing the investigation and filing final report is fatal to the prosecution. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder: “34. Though the occurrence was on 10.09.2005, the investigation was completed and charge sheet was laid only on 28.09.2007, with a delay of two years. S.50 of the Abkari Act says that, every investigation into the offences under the Act shall be completed without unnecessary delay. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution, for the delay of two years in completing the investigation, and filing the final report. The unexplained delay in completing the investigation, and filing the final report is no doubt fatal to the prosecution. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution, for the delay of two years in completing the investigation, and filing the final report. The unexplained delay in completing the investigation, and filing the final report is no doubt fatal to the prosecution. [See Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala 2021 (1) KLT 744, Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala and another 2016 (4) KLT 718 ].” 22. In the instant case also, no explanation, whatsoever is offered by the prosecution to explain the inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet. It is further submitted that, PW3 - an independent witness turned hostile to the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, considering all the illegalities, infirmities and irregularities stated above would casts serious doubts in the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the revision petitioner/accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite law that the penal provisions are to be interpreted within the four corners of the statute. 23. On going through the records of the case and upon hearing the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the trial court and appellate court had overlooked vital illegalities, infirmities or irregularities, which cuts the very root of the prosecution case. In the result, (i) Criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order is set aside. (iii) The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted and he is set at liberty. (iv) The bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioner stands cancelled. (v) Fine, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.