1. The petitioner has been charged for the offences under Sections 279, 304(ii) IPC and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.07.2016 at 04.25 hours, the petitioner herein had rashly driven a car bearing registration No.TN-01-AW-1403 in a drunken state and had hit a pedestrian who sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The car was secured at 05.45 hours and breath analyser test was conducted on the petitioner at 06.09 hours, whereby it was found that the alcohol content in her blood was 36mg/100 ml. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital at Saidapet at 08.00 hours and a blood sample was taken at 10.20 hours. The blood test result sent from the Forensic Science Lab proved negative. However since the breath analyser result detected alcohol content in her blood to be above 30mg/100ml, the petitioner was charged for the offences under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with Sections 279 and 304(ii) of IPC.

4. Mr. B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, by relying upon various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, submitted that the procedure contemplated for taking a breath analyser test and subjecting the petitioner to a registered medical practitioner was violative of the procedure contemplated under Sections 202, 203 and 204 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By relying on Section 203 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of a specimen of breath test while she was under the custody in the police station and therefore the breath analyser test report, alleged to have been taken at the scene of occurrence, cannot be given any credence. As such, in the absence of any material to support the allegation that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, the offences under Sections 279 and 304(ii) IPC as well as Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act will not be attracted. By placing strong reliance on the Forensic Science Lab report, he submitted that since the report revealed that there was no ethyl alcohol in the blood, it can only be concluded that the petitioner was not under the influence of alcohol and thereby the offence cannot be made out as against the petitioner.

5. Mrs. P. Kritika Kamal, learned Government advocate (Crl. Side) on the other hand submitted that there are ample evidences, as well as statements from the witnesses to establish that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol when the incident occurred. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the procedure contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act was properly followed and that in view of the breath analyser test evidencing the alcohol in the petitioner's blood to be above 30mg/100ml, the charges are deemed to have been properly framed. She would further submit that the accident occurred at 4.25 am on 02.07.2016 and that the petitioner was arrested at 9.00 a.m. Hence, when the petitioner was in the police station, the opportunity of another breath analyser test was not required since she was not under arrest at that point of time and therefore, there is no violation of Section 203(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. By relying on the statement of the Security Manager of Taj Coromandal Hotel and the bill obtained from the bar therein, as well as the petitioner's mobile call data, the learned Government Advocate submitted that there were clinching evidences to establish that the petitioner was in an inebriated condition and if at all, the petitioner is of the view that the procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act has been contravened, it is always open to her to establish the same during the course of trial in view of the other incriminating evidences.

6. I have given careful con