IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 627 of 2010()
1. SASI,S/O.KUNJUMON, AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/03/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.627 OF 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated 30th March 2010
O R D E R
Petition is filed under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash
the cognizance taken for the offences under
Sections 184 and 185 of Motor Vehicles
Act, on Annexure-A2 final report submitted
by Sub Inspector of Police Udayamperoor
police station, contending that ingredients
of the offence under Sections 184 or 185 of
Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted.
2. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor were heard.
3. Case against petitioner in
Annexure-A2 final report is that on
23/12/2009 at about 6.20 p.m, petitioner
Crmc 627/10
2
was found driving the vehicle, KL-7.Q-
6220, along Puthiyakavu-Kareeckadu road in
a zig-zag manner dangerously. It is alleged
that petitioner was under the influence of
liquor and has committed the offence under
Sections 184 and 185(a) of M.V.Act.
4. Annexure-A3 certificate of
drunkenness issued by Dr.Bejeesh, shows that
petitioner was examined by the doctor at
6.55 p.m on the same day, when he was
produced before the doctor by the police, on
examination doctor found that though
petitioner had consumed alcohol he was not
under its influence. As rightly pointed out
by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, to attract an offence under
Section 185(a) there should be evidence to
prove that petitioner was driving or
Crmc 627/10
3
attempting to drive motor vehicle and at
that time there was alcohol in his blood
exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood,
detected in a test by breach analyser.
Admittedly, no blood test was conducted and
there is no material to show that when
petitioner was driving the vehicle, at the
relevant time, his blood contained alcohol
in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. In such
circumstances, though he consumed alcohol
when he was not under the influence of
liquor, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for
the offence under Section 185(a) of M.V.Act.
Hence, continuation of the prosecution for
the said offence is only an abuse of process
of the court.
5. But I cannot agree with the
submission that offence under Section 184
Crmc 627/10
4
of M.V.Act is not attracted. Under Section
184, whoever drives a motor vehicle at a
speed or in a manner which is dangerous to
the public having regard to all the
circumstances of the case including the
nature, condition and use of the place where
the vehicle is driven and the amount of
traffic which actually is at the time or
which may reasonably be expected to be in
the place is punishable as provided
therein. When the final report shows that
petitioner was driving the vehicle in a zig-
zag manner and that too in a manner likely
to cause danger to the public, it cannot be
said that Section 184 is not attracted.
Hence prosecution for the said offence
cannot be quashed.
Petition is allowed in part.
Crmc 627/10
5
Cognizance taken on Annexure-A2 final report
taken cognizance in S.T.186/2010 on the file
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ernakulam, to the extent of the offence
under Section 185(a) of M.V.Act is quashed.
But cognizance taken under Section 184 of
M.V.Act is valid and the learned Magistrate
can proceed with the trial for that offence.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.