0.1mg Above Alcohol Limit Not Enough for Criminal Trial: Bombay High Court Quashes Student's FIR

A Trifling Margin, A Heavy Consequence

In a significant ruling that underscores the limits of prosecutorial zeal, the Bombay High Court has quashed a drunk driving FIR against a 25-year-old postgraduate student whose breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of 30.1 mg/100 ml exceeded the statutory limit by a mere 0.1 mg — a variance that falls squarely within the operational tolerance margin of the testing device used.

Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was hearing a writ petition filed by Rohit Abhijit Oze, who had secured admission to a postgraduate programme at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands and obtained a student visa, seeking quashing of FIR No. 740 of 2026 registered at Kandivali Police Station .

The Night in Question

On June 6, 2026 , at around 1:45 a.m., Oze was found driving a car bearing Registration No. MH-47-BK-4275 at Laljipada, New Link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai. A breath alcohol intoxication test conducted using an "Alcovisor Jupiter X" analyser recorded a BAC of 30.1 mg/100 ml — against the permissible limit of 30.0 mg/100 ml under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

The FIR invoked Sections 281 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023) along with Section 185 of the MV Act . The petitioner, who was scheduled to board a flight to the Netherlands on August 3, 2026 , approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.

Petitioner's Contentions

Represented by advocate Aditya Sutrale , Oze contended that even if the BAC reading is taken at face value, the 0.1 mg excess falls within the technically recognized margin of error, undermining the scientific reliability of the prosecution's baseline data. He emphasized his unblemished record, valid driver's license, and the fact that he was not driving in a rash or negligent manner.

State's Response

Additional Public Prosecutor Rajeshree Newton argued that the breath alcohol intoxication test was conducted using a standard analyser and that a BAC exceeding 30 mg/100 ml was sufficient to establish the offence under Section 185 of the MV Act . She submitted that the offence was accordingly registered.

When Science Leaves Room for Doubt

The court closely examined the accuracy specifications of the Alcovisor Jupiter X, which indicated an operational tolerance margin of ±5% to ±8%. Applying a ±5% tolerance to the recorded value of 30.01 mg, the adjusted true value works out to 28.59 mg/100 ml — below the statutory threshold of 30 mg.

The court observed that the reading represented an "extremely thin borderline variance" that would fall within the device's tolerance window. Noting that the prosecution's case rested solely on the breath analyser result, the court highlighted the absence of any corroborative material — no unsteady gait, no incoherent speech, no dilated pupils, and no blood or urine test was conducted on the petitioner.

The court drew support from the Supreme Court 's decision in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 3 SCC 930, where a conviction based solely on the smelling of alcohol and physical symptoms without corroborative tests was deemed unsustainable. It further invoked State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp(1) SCC 335, which provides guidelines for the exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings.

"0.1 mg Mechanical Trifle"

In a forceful articulation of the principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles , the court invoked Section 33 of the BNS 2023 , which incorporates the doctrine de minimis non curat lex .

"Forcing the Petitioner, a student pursuing his studies abroad, who holds a valid driver's license and has no criminal antecedents, to face a multi-year criminal trial over a 0.1 mg mechanical trifle would amount to an abuse of the judicial process ," Justice Bhobe held.

The court also noted that the ingredients of Sections 281 and 125 of the BNS 2023 were not made out on the face of the record. When queried, the APP fairly conceded that these sections were invoked merely because the petitioner was found to exceed the BAC threshold, with no allegation of rash or negligent driving on the material available.

The Verdict

Allowing the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the court quashed and set aside FIR No. 740 of 2026. "The certainty required to sustain a criminal charge is entirely consumed by the device's native tolerance window," the court observed.

The judgment sends a clear signal that prosecuting individuals over technically insignificant variations — where scientific instruments themselves acknowledge a margin of error — would amount to an abuse of the judicial process . The ruling may serve as persuasive guidance for future cases involving borderline breath analyser readings, urging investigation agencies to look beyond raw numbers and consider the totality of circumstances before registering offences.

The court disposed of the petition with no order as to costs .