Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, Patna High Court
Breath Analyzer Report Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna HC Quashes FIR
|The petitioner was accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The Patna High Court reiterated that a breath analyzer report cannot be considered as conclusive evidence of alcohol consumption.
The Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the petitioner, who was accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the case Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that signs such as the smell of alcohol on someone’s breath, unsteady movement, slurred speech, or dilated pupils, are not enough to conclusively prove that a person has consumed alcohol.
A Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri said, "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and taking into consideration the entire materials placed on record, this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the authorities failed to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and based on breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, FIR has been registered,"
The Court noted that the authorities had failed to consider this critical point when they relied solely on the breath analyzer test to file the FIR.
Displeased with the FIR, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court seeking the quashing of the case. He argued that the prosecution's entire case was built solely on the breath analyzer test, which, according to him, could not be deemed conclusive proof of alcohol consumption.
Upon reviewing the arguments and the evidence presented, the High Court ruled that the breath analyzer report alone was insufficient to prosecute the petitioner. In light of the Supreme Court's observations, the Court quashed the FIR and granted relief to the petitioner by allowing his writ petition.
Cause Title: Narendra Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Shivesh Sinha, Piyush Parasar, Meghali Diksha, Amrit Kumar, and Rabi Bhushan Prasad
Respondents: Additional Advocate General Sarvesh Kumar Singh