Need original printout from breathalyzer machine to prove drunken driving: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that a typewritten copy of a breathalyzer test result prepared by the police cannot be treated as valid evidence to prove the offences of drunken driving under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) [Dhanesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice VG Arun observed that only the original printout from the breathalyzer machine, produced immediately after the test and certified appropriately, is admissible as evidence."The print out of the test is not produced. Instead, a typewritten copy prepared by the police is submitted along with the final report. As contended, no evidentiary value can be attached to the type written report," the Court said. The Court also observed that under Section 203(6) of the MV Act, breathalyzer test results are admissible in evidence only if the test is conducted immediately and the original printout is produced in court."The results of the breathalyzer test made admissible by Section 203(6) can only be for the original print taken from the equipment immediately after the test," the Court said. .The judgment was passed in a plea moved by a man to quash the proceedings initiated against him under Section 279 (rash driving) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 185 of the MV Act.The primary evidence relied upon by the prosecution was a typewritten document showing the breathalyzer test result instead of the original printout from the testing machine..Before the High Court, petitioner contended that in producing the typewritten document, the police had failed to follow proper legal procedure.The petitioner also argued that as per the MV Act, a person arrested for drunken driving must be subjected to a medical examination by a registered practitioner within two hours of arrest. However, in the petitioner's case no such medical examination was conducted. It was further contended that the police had failed to to comply with circular No. 44 of 2009 issued by the Director General of Police, which mandates that the printed breathalyzer result must be produced along with the charge sheet.The public prosecutor also confirmed that no original printout was submitted; instead only the typewritten copy was produced..The Court, after analyzing the arguments, said that the absence of the original printout made the typewritten copy inadmissible as evidence, making further proceedings against the petitioner unsustainable.It, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner..The petitioner was represented by advocate TV Jayakumar Namboodiri.Public Prosecutor MC Ashi appeared for the State..[Read Order]