1955 Present: Gratiaen J.

DON CARTHELIS, Appellant, and B. D. IBRAHIM (Sub-
Inspector of Police), Respondent

S. C. 370-M. C. Balapitiya, 10,434
 

Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951-Section 153 {1)-"Drivingwhen under the influence of alcohol ". By section 153 (1) of the Motor Traffic Act-

" No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway when he is under the influence of alcohol or any drug. "

Held, that no offence is committed unless the person driving the vehicle has brought himself under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent that he cannot safely be entrusted with its control while in that condition.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate's Court, Balapitiya.

E. A. G. de Silva, for the accused appellant.

P. Weerasinghe, Crown-Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

July 19, 1955. GRATIAEN J.-

The appellant drove a motor ambulance in which, a patient was conveyed from the Balapitiya Hospital to the Civil Hospital at Galle on the night of 12th. October, 1954. On the return journey the ambulance knocked down a pedestrian called Daemon. The injured man was removed in the same vehicle to Balapitiya where, having first reported the accident to the Police, the appellant took him promptly to the hospital for medical attention. The appellant was in due course charged with having driven the ambulance recklessly and dangerously or alternatively in a negligent manner so as to cause injury to Daemon. On those charges he was acquitted. He was, however, found guilty on another count, wherein he was alleged to have contravened Section 153 (1) of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951, by driving the vehicle on a highway " under the influence of alcohol ".

The evidence in support of the conviction under Section 153 (1) was to the effect that the appellant was smelling of liquor when he arrived with the injured pedestrian at the Balapitiya Police Station. This evidence was confirmed by the doctor who pronounced that the appellant was " under the influence of liquor ". Tie doctor did not explain what precisely he meant by that phrase, or on what grounds he drew this inference. On the other hand, it was conceded that the appellant drove the vehicle quite competently after the accident. Nor is there any evidence from which a Court could fairly conclude that he was not in a fit condition to undertake the responsibility of driving a motor vehicle along the public highway. Can it then be said that, in this state of the evidence, a contravention of Section 153 (1) was established by the mere

fact that the appellant was undoubtedly smelling of liquor after the accident and had (on his own admission) partaken of some alcoholic refreshment at Galle shortly before the accident occurred ?

I understand that Section 153 (1) of the new Act has not previously received judicial interpretation. Section 60 (2) of the repealed Motor Gar Ordinance (Cap. 156) penalised, as an aggravated offence, the reckless or negligent driving of a vehicle when " under the influence of alcohol or of drugs ". At that time, a driver, though " under the influence of alcohol or of drugs ", did not commit an offence unless he was in addition proved to have driven the vehicle in his charge dangerously, negligently or at an excessive speed.

Section 153 (1), by way of contrast, penalises driving " under the influence of alcohol or drugs " without proof of dangerous or careless driving. This new offence is equated for purposes of punishment to reckless or dangerous driving (prohibited by sub-section 2) and negligent driving (prohibited by sub-section 3). In this context, two alternative meanings of Section 153 (1) may be suggested :

(a) that, as it is medically true to say that a person is in some slight degree " influenced " if he has partaken of even a very small dose of alcoholic stimulant, Parliament now insists upon total abstinence from Ceylon motorists ;

or (b) th