Breath Analyzer Test Is Not Conclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR

Post By 24law
February 20, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has reiterated that a breathalyzer test alone does not constitute conclusive proof of alcohol consumption and cannot serve as the sole basis for criminal prosecution under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a petition filed by Narendra Kumar Ram, a Senior Treasury Officer in the Finance Department of Bihar, seeking to quash Excise Police Station Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024), which was registered against him under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. As per the case records, on May 2, 2024, an excise team conducted a breathalyzer test at the petitioner's temporary residence in Kishanganj, which purportedly indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 41 mg/100 ml. The petitioner was subsequently arrested, and an FIR was lodged against him. However, no confirmatory medical tests, such as blood or urine analysis, were conducted to substantiate the allegations.

Court's Observations and Ruling

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, while adjudicating the matter, observed: “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 a breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, an F.I.R. has been registered.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, where it was held that mere indicators such as the smell of alcohol, unsteady gait, slurred speech, or pupil dilation are insufficient to conclusively establish alcohol consumption. The judgment emphasized that confirmatory blood and urine tests are mandatory for determining the presence of alcohol in a person’s system.

Petitioner’s Defense

The petitioner contended that the breathalyzer test results were not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption and argued that he had been prescribed alcohol-based homeopathic medicine for a stomach infection, which could have influenced the test results. Despite this plausible explanation, no further medical tests were conducted to verify the claims. Additionally, the petitioner alleged professional vendetta, asserting that the District Magistrate of Kishanganj had directed the registration of the FIR and pushed for departmental action, including his suspension. He further claimed that he had previously rejected certain financial bills submitted by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) of Kishanganj due to procedural discrepancies, which may have led to retaliatory actions against him.

State’s Argument

The State opposed the quashing of the FIR, arguing that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, strictly prohibits alcohol consumption in any form. It further contended that government servants are specifically barred from consuming alcohol under Rule 4 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. The prosecution maintained that the breathalyzer test was accurate and that the petitioner’s claims of professional vendetta were baseless.

Court’s Conclusion

After considering the arguments, the Court held that: “For the reasons stated above, the Excise Police Station Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024), dated 02.05.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, is, hereby, quashed.” With this ruling, the Court reaffirmed that a breathalyzer test, without confirmatory medical evidence, does not meet the evidentiary standard required for prosecution under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.