1. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act), confirmed in appeal by the appellate court, the accused in C.C.No.804/1999 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kanjirappally has come up in revision. The prosecution case is that at about 6.40 pm. on 27.7.1999 the revision petitioner was found driving the Bus No.KL7/U1166 in a drunken condition. He was arrested on the spot by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallickathodu, and was subjected to examination by a medical practitioner. On examination, the doctor found that the revision petitioner had consumed alcohol but he was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of examination. However blood sample was collected, and on examination in the laboratory, the blood sample was found containing 51.75 mgs of Alcohol per 100 ml. of blood. On examination the urine sample was found containing 63.25 mgs of Alcohol per 100 ml of urine. Even before obtaining report of analysis, the Sub Inspector of Police suo moto registered FIR against the revision petitioner under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and investigation proceeded.

2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kanjirappally, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined five witnesses during trial and marked Exts.P1 to P4 inclusive of the drunkenness certificate, and the report of chemical analysis. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. However, the defence evidence was not accepted by the trial court. Accepting the evidence given by the prosecution the learned Magistrate convicted the revision petitioner. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he preferred appeal before the Court of Session, Kottayam as Crl.A No.99/2001. In appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Adhoc I), Kottayam confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

4. Legality of the whole prosecution is very much under challenge in this revision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the whole prosecution inclusive of registration of the FIR, and the subsequent investigation is in fact vitiated, for want of necessary sanction by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned counsel also submitted that when a person is arrested on the accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the arresting officer is bound to conduct breath test by breath analyzer, because that is the essential condition for a prosecution under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of the contentions the learned counsel also cited a decision of this Court in Mehaboob V. State (2011 (2) KHC 261). In the said decision this Court has well discussed the legal aspects involved in a prosecution under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the legal procedure for registration of FIR and investigation.

5. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that whoever, while driving a motor vehicle, has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood detected in a test by a breath analyzer shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/-for the first offence. Thus the provision itself prescribes how the test should be conducted. The question of taking the accused to a medical practitioner and having the blood sample analysed for detecting the quantity of alcohol in blood comes only when the person is arrested under Section 202, or under Section 203 of MV Act.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that for a prosecution under Section 185 of the MV Act, detection of alcohol content in blood by breath analyzer is a must, and that without such dete