O R D E R

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act .

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 21.9.2004 at about 7.30 a.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of five litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act .

3. Heard.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that there was inordinate delay in conducting the investigation and hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Krishnan H. v. State [ 2015(1) KHC 822 ], to buttress her argument. In Krishnan H. (supra), the court held that the inordinate delay in conducting the investigation, in the absence of sufficient explanation, is fatal to the prosecution. In this case, the incident was on 21.9.2004. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by PW7 only after one year and two months from the date of occurrence. The final report was filed before the court only on 9.12.2005, which was after a period of more than one year and two months from the date of occurrence. PW7 stated that there were old cases to b