Point of Law: Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act creates a criminal offence. It purports to deal with driving by a drunken person or by a person under influence of drugs.

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.2.2010, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, District Shimla in case No. 195-2 of 2007, whereby the accused/respondent stood acquitted, the appellant-State has filed the instant appeal.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.7.2007, the respondent/accused was found to be driving vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01A-3573 in a rash and negligent manner. He lost control over the vehicle as a result of which the vehicle rolled down approximately 15 feet, resulting in simple injuries on the person of the respondent. The matter was reported to the Police and on the basis of investigation carried out, it was opined that the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, that too without having a valid and effective driving license. Accordingly, notice of accusation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and Sections 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act was put to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses. Thereafter statement of respondent/accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. After evaluating the evidence, learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent/accused constraining the appellant-State to file the instant appeal.

4. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are perverse inasmuch as it has failed to take into consideration the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective. Therefore, on this sole ground the judgment deserves to be set aside. In addition, it is averred that there was ample amount of evidence to substantiate and prove the fact that the respondent/accused, at the relevant time, was under the influence of alcohol.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

6. At the outset, it needs to be observed that a person can be said to be under the influence of alcohol, if his faculties are so disturbed that his driving ability is impaired. To be under influence of alcohol must be understood as a question going to the facts and a matter to be decided with reference to the impact of consumption of alcohol on the particular driver. If in a case, without there being any blood test, circumstances associated with effects of consumption of alcohol are proved, it may certainly go to show that the person who drove the vehicle had come under the influence of alcohol. The manner in which the vehicle was driven, may again, if it unerringly points to the person having been under the influence of alcohol, be reckoned. Evidence, if forthcoming, of an unsteady gait, smell of alcohol, either before the commencement of the driving or even during the process of driving, along with the manner in which the accident took place, may point to the driver being under the influence of alcohol. It would be a finding based on the effect of the pleadings and the evidence. It is so held by the learned three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment, titled as, “Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited versus Pearl Beverages Limited”, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 704.

7. Earlier to this, the learned three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 1971 (3) SCC 930 had held that drunkenness cannot be said to be conclusively proved unless urine or blood test are carried out. Mere smell of alcohol, unsteady gait, dilation of pupils and incoherence in speech is not enough.

8. Bearing in mind the afore exposition of law, it would be noticed that the prosecution had examined two passengers, PW-2 Kimat Singh and PW-3 Surender to prove that the respondent/accused was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time. These witnesses have stated that on the date of accident they were in the vehicle being driven by the accused. They further stated that the