Patna High Court: Breath Analyzer Test Not Conclusive Proof of Alcohol Consumption

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Court noted this while dismissing an FIR against an individual accused under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Patna: The Patna High Court has once again made it clear that a breath analyzer test cannot be treated as final proof of alcohol consumption. The Court quashed an FIR registered under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court: “Wife’s Consumption of Alcohol Doesn’t Constitute Cruelty Unless It Leads to Unwarranted Behavior”

A single-judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that the authorities had ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra.

In that case, the Supreme Court had ruled that just because a person has the smell of alcohol on their breath, walks unsteadily, speaks incoherently, or has dilated pupils, it does not mean they have consumed alcohol.

The Court stated “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.”

ALSO READ: [Pune Porsche Accident] ‘Conspiring to Tamper with Son’s Blood Samples to Conceal Alcohol Presence’: SC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Father of Minor Co-Passenger

Background

The case revolved around Narendra Kumar Ram, who was arrested on May 2, 2024, from his temporary residence in Kishanganj. The excise department conducted a breath analyzer test, which showed an alcohol concentration of 41 mg/100 ml in his system. Based on this, the police arrested him and filed an FIR under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Unhappy with this, Narendra Kumar Ram approached the Patna High Court and requested that the case be dismissed.

The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the prosecution’s entire case was built only on a breath analyzer report. He pointed out that:

• No blood test or urine test was done, even though these tests are necessary to confirm alcohol consumption under the law.
• He had been prescribed homeopathic medicine containing an alcohol-based solvent by an Electro Homeopathy Institute on April 16, 2024, for stomach treatment. This could have resulted in the breath analyzer showing alcohol traces.
• The case violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The State authorities argued that the petitioner was found inebriated, and the breath analyzer test confirmed alcohol consumption. They stated that the case was filed lawfully, the test was accurate, and no procedural violations took place. The prosecution also dismissed the petitioner’s claim of malicious intent as false and baseless.

Panchsheel Test and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court laid down the Panchsheel Test to assess the admissibility and reliability of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct proof. This test comprises five fundamental principles:

1. The circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt must be fully established.
2. The facts determined should align exclusively with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt.
3. The circumstances must be decisive and indicative of guilt.
4. They should rule out any possibility other than the one being proven.
5. The chain of evidence must be so complete that it leaves no reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s innocence and must establish that, in all likelihood, the act was committed by the accused.

Applying this test, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution had failed to present an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The evidence put forth did not conclusively point towards the accused’s guilt. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

ALSO READ: “Even Young Children Can Purchase Liquor Freely”: Supreme Court Issues Notice on PIL Seeking Stricter Alcohol Restrictions Nationwide

After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court ruled that a breath analyzer report alone cannot be treated as conclusive evidence in such cases. Since no further tests were conducted, the FIR was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

• Petitioner’s Lawyers: Shivesh Sinha, Piyush Parasar, Meghali Diksha, Amrit Kumar, and Rabi Bhushan Prasad.
• State’s Representative: Additional Advocate General Sarvesh Kumar Singh

Case Title: Narendra Kumar Ram vs The State of Bihar and Ors

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE