Mandatory testing under the Motor Vehicles Act must occur within specified timeframes to ensure valid prosecution.

O R D E R

Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2495/2025 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has been registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’, in short).

2. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that:-

On 04.09.2025, at about 14:05 hours, the accused was found driving a car bearing registration No. KL-01- CL-5757 in inebriated condition and in a rash and negligent manner from Thirumala to Poojappura.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer has failed to conduct the blood test of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no sufficient materials to prove that he was under the influence of alcohol. It is mandatory that blood test has to be conducted. The above view has been laid down by this Court in Benny Mon vs. State of Kerala [ 2025 (2) KHC 519 ]. Therefore, even if the petitioner withstands the trial, it is not lead to a conviction. Therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the Crl.M.C. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that no blood test was conducted.

6. The petitioner’s grievance is that, although no blood test was conducted on him, he has been charged for the offences under Section 281 of the BNS and Section

185 of the Act.

7. In Dhanesh M. v. State of Kerala [2025(3)

KHC 292] and Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala [ 2025(5) KHC 98 ], this Court has categorically held that, it is mandatory to subject a person to medical test by a registered Medical Practitioner within two hours of his arrest, as per Section 185 of the Act, if a person is accused of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle in a public place, under the influence of alcohol.

8. In light of the above exposition of law and the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not subjected to blood test, I am of the definite view that the prosecution has miserably failed to comply with the statutory mandate.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by quashing Annexure A1 First Information Report, Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.T.No.2495/2025 of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, as against the petitioner. Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1241/2025 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION DATED 04/09/2025 ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT LEVELED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED DATED 10/09/2025 ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN BENNY MON V. STATE OF KERALA, 2025(2) KHC 519