IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 924 of 2008()
1. K.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.I. OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.RESHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR,J.
=========================
CRL.M.C. NO.924 OF 2008
=========================
Dated this the 11th day of March 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime
No.6354/2006 of City Traffic Police Station, Edappalli and
now pending as S.T.2056/2007 on the file of the JFCM II,
Aluva for offences punishable under Sections 184 and
185 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, seeks to quash the
final report as well as the aforesaid case, so far as they
relate to the offence punishable under Section 185 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.
2. According to the prosecution on 9.12.2006, the
petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, drove his
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AY 748 in a rash and
negligent manner endangering human life and he was
nabbed by the public and the petitioner has thereby
committed offences punishable under Sections 184 and
185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. In order to substantiate the charge under
Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the prosecution
CRL.M.C.924/2008 2
will have to prove that the accused person, while driving
the vehicle in question, was having in his blood alcohol
exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. detected in a test by a
breath analyzer or was under the influence of a drug to
such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper
control over the vehicle. The prosecution has no case
that the petitioner was under the influence of a drug
falling under clause (b) of Section 185 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. The prosecution relies on clause (a) of the
said section to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. The
certificate of drunkenness produced along with the
complaint only shows that the petitioner consumed
alcohol but was not under its influence. Admittedly the
petitioner has not been subjected to a breath analyzer
test to ascertain the fact that he was in a drunken state
within the meaning of 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Without subjecting the petitioner to a breath analyzer
test, the prosecution cannot sustain the charge for the
CRL.M.C.924/2008 3
offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
{See Shibu v State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT 747) as also
the decision dated 2.1.2008 in Crl.M.C.3813/2007}.
Accordingly, S.T.2056/2007 on the file of the JFCM II,
Aluva, so far as it relates to the offence punishable under
Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is hereby
quashed. The prosecution of the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act will however, continue.
Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/
