Conclusive evidence, such as urine or blood tests, is necessary to prove alcohol consumption under the Kerala Police Act.

Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. 113 of 1987 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolencherry. He was charged under S.51 (a) of the Kerala Police Act. Learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five days more. This finding has been confirmed by the Wth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal 215 of 1988.

2. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that there is no conclusive evidence of the revision petitioner having consumed alcohol and was incapable of taking care of himself or behaved in a disorderly manner under its influence. Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra (1972 SCC (Crl.) 178) where the Supreme Court held that it cannot be said to be conclusively proved that a person has consumed alcohol unless urine or blood test was carried out and mere smelling of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation of pupils and incoherence in speech are not enough to come to any such conclusion.

3. The certificate issued by P.W.3 doctor itself clearly shows that urine or blood test could not be conducted due to lack of facilities. Therefore, the doctor's opinion that the revision petitioner had consumed alcohol and he was under its influence cannot be given any importance.

4. P.W.2 did not state before the Court that the staggering of the revision petitioner was due to the influence of alcohol. He stated that he did not hear any obscene words spoken to by the revision petitioner. The evidence of the witnesses cannot improve the case of the prosecution in view of the lack of medical evidence. That being the position I hold that the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.

The conviction and sentence entered against the revision petitioner by the trial Court which have been confirmed by the Sessions Judge are set aside. The revision petitioner is found not guilty and is acquitted. The revision petition stands allowed. The bail bond shall stand cancelled.