The Gujarat High Court reaffirmed that police officers are not above the law, upholding the conviction of a constable found drunk on duty and stressing that such misconduct undermines public trust, discipline, and institutional integrity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
GUJARAT: The Gujarat High Court has upheld the conviction of a police constable who was found drunk while on duty, ruling that such behaviour undermines public confidence and erodes the integrity of the police force.
Justice R.T. Vachhani, presiding over the matter, dismissed a Criminal Revision Application filed by Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol, a police constable convicted under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The Court reaffirmed that while police personnel enjoy certain statutory protections, they are not above the law.
“Being found intoxicated while on duty undermines the integrity and efficiency of police personnel and erodes public trust in law enforcement agencies,”
observed Justice Vachhani.
ALSO READ: Bail Can’t Be Cancelled Merely for Online Celebration or Status Updates: Delhi High Court
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to 2003, when the complainant and other officers discovered the applicant, then a police constable on point duty, in a visibly inebriated condition. He was unable to maintain balance, his speech was slurred, and the smell of alcohol was apparent.
Upon questioning, the constable failed to produce any valid pass or permit authorizing alcohol consumption. A medical examination and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) test later confirmed 0.0945% w/v of ethyl alcohol in his blood sample, nearly double the permissible limit of 0.05% under the law.
He was subsequently charged under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
- The Metropolitan Magistrate (2010) convicted him under Section 66(1)(b) but acquitted him under Section 85(1)(3), finding that although alcohol consumption was proven, he was not drunk to the extent of losing control or behaving indecently.
- He was sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment and fined ₹500.
- His appeal before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (2011) was dismissed.
Aggrieved, he approached the Gujarat High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Arguments Before the High Court
For the Applicant:
Advocate R. Nayan L. Gupta argued that:
- The conviction under Section 66(1)(b) could not stand after acquittal under Section 85(1)(3), as both provisions were interrelated.
- Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959 was not properly followed, raising doubts about the sample’s validity.
- A five-day delay in sending the sample to the FSL rendered the report unreliable.
For the Prosecution:
Additional Public Prosecutor H.K. Patel maintained that:
- All procedures were duly followed, a disposable syringe was used, preservatives were added, and the sample was forwarded within the statutory seven days.
- Section 66(1)(b) focuses solely on proof of alcohol consumption, whereas Section 85(1)(3) deals with visible loss of control or public disorder, making the two provisions independent.
- The applicant’s conduct, as a serving police officer, aggravated the seriousness of the offence and set a poor example for the force.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
After a detailed review of the evidence and arguments, Justice Vachhani found no illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
The Bench observed that the chain of custody for the blood sample remained intact, compliance with Rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules was duly established, and the FSL report conclusively proved consumption of alcohol.
“The statutory presumption arises above 0.05%, making behavioural evidence supplementary but not essential,”
the Court held.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as:
- State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992),
- Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. S. Vel Raj (1997), and
- DIG of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2013),
The Court emphasized that acts of intoxication on duty constitute grave misconduct and warrant strict disciplinary action.
Justice Vachhani made strong remarks about the importance of integrity and discipline within the police force:
“Police officers enjoy certain protections; however, they are not above the law. Being found intoxicated while on duty undermines the integrity and efficiency of police personnel and erodes public trust in law enforcement agencies.”
He further noted that granting probation or leniency in such cases would send the wrong signal, weakening the moral and disciplinary fabric of the police.
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and directed the applicant to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Justice Vachhani concluded:
“The minimum sentence imposed is not only justified but necessary to deter similar acts. Grant of probation or reduction would undermine discipline and public confidence.”
ALSO READ: Telangana Local Body Polls: Supreme Court Upholds 42% BC Quota
Case Title:
Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 424 of 2011
Read Judgment: