Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN
Saran Kumar S. S/o Sivasambhu G. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusation details and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural shortcomings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observations on test validity and legal thresholds. (Para 7 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. breathalyzer calibration is essential for valid dui evidence. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. final decision on quashing proceedings. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1637 of 2024 registered at the Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for the offence under Section 281 of BNS along with Sections 185 , 3(1) and 181 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .
2. The crime is registered on the allegation that the petitioner was found driving his scooter at about 08:30 PM on 30.12.2024 on the Medical College-Kumarapuram road in a rash and negligent manner. The vehicle was intercepted by the Police party and on suspicion that the petitioner had consumed alcohol, he was arrested and later released on self bond, after conducting a breathalyzer test.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, going by Section 203 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , the breathalyzer test ought to have been conducted immediately after intercepting the vehicle, whereas in the petitioner's
Breathalyzer test results must be reliable; improper calibration invalidates the evidence of alcohol consumption, impacting prosecution under relevant vehicle statutes.
The prosecution for dangerous driving and alcohol consumption fails when the breathalyzer test is improperly conducted and the defendant holds a valid driving license.
Breathalyzer test evidence requires original print documentation for admissibility; typewritten reports lack evidentiary value under Motor Vehicles Act and associated directives.
A breathalyser test is mandatory to substantiate claims of driving under intoxication; failure to do so invalidates related prosecutions.
The court clarified that the breath test under section 45B of the Road Transport Act is not an initial test, and the requirement for further specimens under section 45C is not mandatory unless explic....
The requirement for obtaining further specimens after an initial breath test is not mandated by law, as interpreted from the statutory language of the Road Transport Act.
Mandatory testing under the Motor Vehicles Act must occur within specified timeframes to ensure valid prosecution.
The court determined that the procedural requirements under Section 45C(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987 are mandatory, and failure to comply results in a miscarriage of justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
