Investigation conducted by an unauthorized officer renders a conviction invalid, highlighting the necessity of jurisdictional authority to establish legal accountability.

ORDER

The convict in SC No.86 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-III, Kozhikode, filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 21.06.2010 in that Sessions Case, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine for Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and also the judgment dated 28.02.2014 in Crl.A.No.403 of 2010 passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, whereby that appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, confirming the Trial Court judgment.

2. The prosecution case is that on 31.01.2002 at about 2.30 p.m, the petitioner-accused, along with his co-accused, was found in possession and transporting 840 litres of spirit in 28 Cans containing 35 litres each in an Ambulance Van bearing Reg.No.KL11/D-8510 through Kozhikode-Wayanad road in front of West Coast Fibre Industries at the place Pullanhimedu. The offence was detected, and the initial formalities were complied by PW1, the Excise Inspector of Thamarassery. Later, the investigation of the offence was conducted and completed by PW6, the Excise Inspector of Kunnamangalam, who laid the final report before the competent jurisdictional Magistrate. On receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offence as C.P.No.27 of 2006. After compying the legal formalities as provided under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. by providing copies of the prosecution records to the accused, the case against the petitioner herein was committed to the Sessions Division, Kozhikode, under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. Since the 2^nd accused in the crime did not appear before the Magistrate, the case against him was split up and re- filed. On receipt of the committal records, the Sessions Judge numbered case as SC.No.86 of 2007 and made over the same to the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge-III, Kozhikode, for trial and disposal.

3. On securing the presence of the accused, the Assistant Session Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charge for the offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, from the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined, and Exhibits P1 to P8 documents were marked. MO1 and MO2 material objects were also identified by the prosecution witnesses. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 (1) of Cr.P.C., and he denied all the incriminating evidence brought out against him. When the case was posted for defence evidence, having found it as unfit for acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, from the side of the petitioner-accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined. After hearing both sides and on an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty and sentenced him as mentioned above. The appeal filed by the petitioner-accused ended in dismissal. Hence, the petitioner- accused is now before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard Adv.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused argued that there are serious laches in the investigation, which entitle the petitioner-accused to get an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The learned counsel pointed out that the offence was detected by PW1, the Excise Inspector of Thamarassery and the place of incident is within the limits of the Thamarassery Excise Range. However, the investigation was conducted b