The Kerala High Court has quashed a case of drunk driving against a man while maintaining his conviction under section 279 of the IPC for rash and negligent driving.

The High Court was considering a matter of drunk driving where the offender was alleged to have driven a motor car with alcohol content amounting to 121 mg per 100 ml in his blood.

Noting that there were sufficient materials for prosecuting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 279 IPC, the Single Bench of Justice G. Girish said, “Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner cannot be quashed due to the sole reason that there is non-compliance of the procedural requirements for initiating prosecution under Section 185 of the MV Act.”

Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu represented the Petitioner while Advocate Sangeetharaj. N.R. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2019 when the accused/petitioner was found to have been driving a motor car under the influence of alcohol, in a rash and negligent manner, likely to endanger human life, through a public road. The Sub Inspector of Police and his team intercepted the vehicle and subjected the petitioner to an alcometer test, in which it was found that the alcohol content in his blood was 121 mg per 100 ml. The petitioner/accused was arrested on the spot and taken into custody. Instead of being subjected to the laboratory test as required under Section 204 of the MV Act, the petitioner was released on bail and the Sub Inspector filed a final report before the Magistrate alleging the commission of offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Accused Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the case registered against him on the grounds of procedural irregularities on the part of the investigating agency.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the crime involved in this case is alleged to have been committed on May 28, 2019 and the amendment made to Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act hadn’t come into force till then. At that time, the law mandated the detection of alcohol content in the blood of the offender as exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml through a breath analyser test.

Noting that the procedural requirement of Section 185(a) as it existed at the time of commission of the crime, had been fulfilled in the present case, the Bench said, “Had it been a case where the Investigating Officer proceeded with the matter in the same manner as he does while dealing with any other non-cognizable offence, and did not venture to arrest the petitioner, then the above breath-analyzer test result alone was sufficient to establish the offence under Section 185 of the M.V.Act.”

The Bench further observed, “Blood test of the offender is not a mandatory requirement if there is no arrest pursuant to him being booked for the offence under Section 185 of the M.V.Act after a breath-analyzer test. But the position is different if there is arrest of the accused after subjecting him to breath-analyzer test. It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the Investigating Officer had resorted to the arrest of the petitioner in exercise of his powers under Section 202 of the MV Act.”

The Bench noted that the petitioner was subjected to a breath analyser test by the Investigating Officer and after his arrest, he was not subjected to the laboratory test by a registered Medical Practitioner as required under Section 204 of the MV Act. “The non-compliance of the above requirement under the proviso to Section 202 of the MV Act would vitiate the prosecution initiated against him under Section 185 of the MV Act”, it said.

As per the Bench, where the Investigating Agency omits to follow the procedural mandate of law which would have established the offence alleged against the accused, the presumption has to be drawn in favour of the accused. In view of such aspects, the Bench held that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner for the offence under Section 185 of the MV Act couldn’t survive the scrutiny of the law.

Coming to the aspect of rash and negligent driving as envisaged under Section 279 IPC, the Bench discarded the contention that since the rash and negligent driving was the outcome of drunkenness, and since the offence relating to drunken driving was not brought out in the case, there couldn’t be a successful prosecution for Section 279 IPC as well. “In other words, even if the vehicle was being driven by the offender in a perfect manner, the offence under Section 185(a) of MV Act is attracted if it is shown that the alcohol content in the blood of the offender exceeded 30 mg per 100 ml”, it said.

Thus, quashing the prosecution against the petitioner under Section 185 of the MV Act, the Bench ordered, “The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case for the offence under Section 279 IPC booked against the petitioner.”

Cause Title: Benny Mon v. State Of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:22425)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates M.Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, P.M. Rafiq,Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, V.C.Sarath, Vipin Narayan, Pooja Pankaj

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N.R

Click here to read/download Order




Kerala High CourtJustice G Girish

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.