Being Found Intoxicated While On Duty Undermines Integrity Of Police Personnel: Gujarat High Court Upholds Constable’s Conviction

The Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the applicant, original accused challenging the judgment dismissing his appeal against the conviction order.

The Single Bench of Justice R. T. Vachhani held, “Police officers enjoy certain protections; however, they are not above the law. Being found intoxicated while on duty, undermines the integrity and efficiency of police personnel and, otherwise damages and erodes public trust in law enforcement agencies.

Advocate R Nayan L Gupta represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor HK Patel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to 2003 when the complainant, along with other police staff, found the applicant serving as a Police Constable and deputed on point duty along with another Constable in an inebriated condition. The applicant was unable to maintain his bodily posture properly, his speech was slurred, and a strong smell of alcohol was emanating from his mouth. The applicant produced no pass or permit for the consumption of alcohol. The applicant was taken to Civil Hospital where his blood sample was collected in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959.

The FSL report revealed 0.0945% w/v ethyl alcohol in the blood sample, which exceeded the permissible limit of 0.05% as prescribed under the Explanation to Section 66(1)(b) of the Prohibition Act. A complaint came to be lodged under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Prohibition Act, and the applicant was convicted under Section 66(1)(b) but acquitted under Section 85(1). By the impugned order, the applicant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs 500. The Court held that while alcohol consumption was proved, the applicant was not intoxicated to the extent of losing self-control or behaving indecently in public. The appeal filed before the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed, and his conviction was confirmed. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Upon an independent scrutiny of the record, including depositions, exhibits and arguments, the Bench found no perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings. “The prosecution established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt through reliable police witnesses, medical examination by Dr. Shah, FSL analysis by Scientific Officer Goridatt, and investigation by P.W.20 and P.W.21. The blood alcohol concentration of 0.0945% conclusively proves consumption under Section 66(1)(b). The statutory presumption arises above 0.05%, making behavioral evidence supplementary but not essential”, it held.

As per the Bench, compliance with Rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules was duly established, and the doctor’s deposition proved that the disposable syringe and needle were used, skin was cleaned with gentian violet, preservative was added, blood was transferred, mixed, sealed, labelled and forwarded, thereby satisfying the mandate. “Authorities cited by the applicant are distinguishable on facts. The chain of custody remained intact and seals were not tampered with. Minor delay of five days was within the seven-day statutory limit. Nonexamination of the messenger caused no prejudice”, it further added.

The Bench also asserted, “The applicant’s position as a police constable on duty aggravates the seriousness of the offence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that acts of intoxication on duty by police personnel constitute grave misconduct.” Reference was made to the judgments in State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, (1992), Govt. of T.N. v. S. Vel Raj, (1997) and Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013), wherein dismissal or severe punishment for similar conduct was upheld, emphasizing that police forces demand impeccable conduct and discipline.

Noting that a grant of probation or further reduction would send a wrong signal, undermining discipline and public confidence, the Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title: Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:57972)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Nayan L Gupta, Ashish M Dagli

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor HK Patel

Click here to read/download Order