[Bihar Prohibition And Excise Act] Breath Analyzer Report Not Conclusive For Proving Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that a breath analyzer report is not conclusive proof to determine whether a person has consumed alcohol or not.The original petitioner (deceased) was working as a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) at Nirmali Police Station. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for consumption of alcohol in violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016....
The Patna High Court has held that a breath analyzer report is not conclusive proof to determine whether a person has consumed alcohol or not.
The original petitioner (deceased) was working as a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) at Nirmali Police Station. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for consumption of alcohol in violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The District Magistrate in a disciplinary proceeding against the original petitioner dismissed him from his service. In appeal, the Commissioner also upheld the order.
The original petitioner claimed that there was no scientific examination conducted by any authority to conclusively prove whether he consumed alcohol or not. He claimed that his blood and urine samples were not taken to ascertain the percentage of alcohol in his blood or urine.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri stated that a breath analyzer report is not conclusive proof of consuming liquor by a person. The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra, 1971, where it was held that consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by way of blood and urine tests. The Apex Court had observed that a person's breath smelling of alcohol, his gait being unsteady or his pupils being dilated was not proof of consumption of alcohol by that person.
In the present case, the High Court noted that there was no blood and urine test conducted to determine whether the petitioner consumed any alcohol. It held that punishing the appellant based on the breath analyzer report is incorrect. The Court said:
“I have no other alternative but to hold that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and based his order of punishment of the original petitioner of breathe analyzer report which cannot be said to be a conclusive report of consumption of alcohol.”
It thus quashed the order passed by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner.
Case title: Manju Devi W/o Late Prabhakar Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No.2590 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 46