Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN
Dhanesh M. S/o Damodaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.48 of 2019 registered at the Payangadi Police Station for the offences under Section 279 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 185 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , now pending as STC No.291 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur.
2. The crime was registered on the allegation that, at about 22.10 hours on 21.01.2019, the petitioner was found driving his motor bike dangerously after consuming alcohol. In order to prove that the petitioner had driven the vehicle after consuming alcohol, report of the breathalyzer test conducted is the only piece of evidence. The challenge in the Crl.M.C is that the report of the breathalyzer test produced is of a typewritten document and is hence, of no evidentiary value.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Section 202 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , a person arrested in connection with an offence under Section 185 should be subjected to medical examination within two hours of his arrest. Even though Section 203 provides for conduct of a breath test by the police officer, the result of that test can be accepted in evidence only if the print out of the t
Breathalyzer test evidence requires original print documentation for admissibility; typewritten reports lack evidentiary value under Motor Vehicles Act and associated directives.
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 results must be reliable; improper calibration invalidates the evidence of alcohol consumption, impacting prosecution under relevant vehicle statutes.
Mandatory testing under the Motor Vehicles Act must occur within specified timeframes to ensure valid prosecution.
Prosecution based on unreliable evidence and improper investigation methods cannot sustain criminal charges.
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.
(1) To be under influence of alcohol must be understood as, a question going to facts and a matter to be decided with reference to impact of consumption of alcohol on particular driver.(2) Presence o....
(1) Harmonizing Policy Clauses with Section 185 of the MV Act – Commission clarified that insurance companies cannot repudiate a claim simply because any amount of alcohol is detected. For a claim to....
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
