The main legal point established in the judgment is that a conviction under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for drunken driving can be sustained without a breath analyzer test if the accused knowingly admits to driving in a drunken state.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.7.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 42(3)/2005 upholding the order dated. 27.6.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 6, Agartala, West Tripura in C.R.(V) No. 857 of 2005.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Saha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath, the learned Public Prosecutor in-charge for the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.5.2005 at about 21-00 hours, the police received an information to the effect that a Mini Bus bearing TR-01-A-1418 (CD Ride) driven by the petitioner dashed against SPF bridge and accordingly, rushed to the spot and found the driver of the Mini Bus, i.e., the petitioner detained by the local people. The petitioner was alleged to have created disturbance under the influence of liquor. On interrogation, the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply or produce the registration certificate or his driving licence, whereupon he was arrested under Sections 181/185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the M.V. Act'). Thereafter the petitioner was taken to the medical officer of Bamutia PHC, who after examination, certified that the petitioner consumed alcohol and was violent and unable to control himself. On the basis of this finding, the police challaned the petitioner to stand the trial. The petitioner appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and pleaded guilty to the offence alleged against him. Upon this plea of guilt, the learned Magistrate convicted him under Sections 181/185 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in respect of the offence under Section 181 of the M.V. Act and to undergo S.I. for 10 days in default of payment of fine and also sentenced him to suffer S.I. for 3 months with a fine of Rs. 1,000 and to further undergo S.I. for 15 days in default of payment of fine in respect of the offence committed by him under Section 185 of the M.V. Act. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 42(3)/2005. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 30.7.2005 dismissed the appeal holding that he did not find any illegality in the order of conviction and sentence since the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges and that moreover, the case being a petty offence, no appeal would lie against the conviction and sentence in petty offences. This is how this revision petition came to be filed by the petitioner.

4. Mr. S. Saha, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not question the conviction and sentence upon the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 181 of the M.V. Act. He, however, vehemently submits that when the petitioner neither admitted his consumption of alcohol at the time of accident nor was any blood test conducted by the medical officer on him, the opinion/report of the medical officer could not be relied upon for convicting the petitioner under Section 185 of the M.V. Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for holding any person guilty of the offence under Section 185 of the M.V. Act, the person who drives the motor vehicle must have alcohol in his blood exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood, which can be determined or detected only in a test by a breath analyser and such test not having been done in the instant case, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 185 of the M.V. Act is illegal and unsustainable in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was given to understand that if he pleaded guilty to the charges, the learned Magistrate would not sentence him to imprisonment but would only impose a fine of Rs. 500 or 50. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate did not utter a single word to the knowled