Breath analyser test, any diagnostic test necessary to proceed against a person for drunk driving: Kerala High Court [Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court last week ruled that a finding that a person was intoxicated would have to be backed by a breath analyser test before the person could be punished under the Motor Vehicles Act for drunk driving (Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala)..The ruling came from a single-judge Bench of Justice VG Arun while disposing of an application filed by a person accused of drunk driving, an offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act..The accused had rammed his car into another and injured its occupants. Upon arrest, he was examined by a doctor who opined that his breath smelled of alcohol. On this premise, the person was charged with Section 185. .The counsel for the petitioner asserted that to attract the offence of drunk driving under Section 185(a), he should have been subjected to a breath analyser test or any other test.Only once it was revealed that his blood contained alcohol content exceeding 30 mg/ 100 ml could he be charged under the Section, it was argued..The prosecution stated that the accused was driving negligently and rashly and wrecked his car into another car and injured its occupants. Accused was arrested, and the medical report stated that the accused smelled of alcohol according to the doctor. Based on the doctor’s opinion, the accused was booked under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act..The Court relied on its previous ruling which had mandated a breath analyser test to be conducted before moving against a person under Section 185..Since the judgment concerned the state of affairs prior to the 2019 Amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court was required to decide the scheme of affairs after the amendment. Justice Arun pointed out that after the amendment, the statute mandated either a laboratory test or breath analyser test..Therefore, the Court stated that the proceeding against Section 185 could be quashed, since clearly no test had been conducted..The Court, however, refused to interfere with the other charges against the petitioner relating to the mishap..[Read Judgment]