Six years after a man was held by the Chandigarh Police for allegedly driving under the influence of liquor and hitting a pole, the district court of Chandigarh acquitted him observing that “merely because smell of alcohol was coming from the accused does not mean that he was under the influence of liquor”.
Accused Akshay was booked under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
As per the proseution, on June 9, 2019, at light point of Sector 22/23, Chandigarh, Akshay drove his vehicle bearing registration no. PB01A4282 in a drunken condition and hit the police.
He was then apprehended and got medically examined and he was found under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, a case was registered.
The accused was arrested and his vehicle was taken into police possession.
During trial in the court, a prosecution witness, Inspector (Retired) Rajinder Singh, testified that he along with Contstable Pardeep and Constable Vipin in an official vehicle bearing no.CH01GA-6814 were patrolling.
When they reached near Sector 22/23 light point, a car was coming from Sector-22 market driven in a rash and negligent manner.
The car hit the dividing pole, Sector-22/23 light point. On confrontation, the said person told his name as Akshay and his breath was smelling of alcohol.
Sector 22/23 Also, another prosecution witness, Dr Kriti Dayora, EMO, Civil Hospital, Sector 22, Chandigarh, stated that on June 9, 2019, the accused was brought in the emergency, Civil Hospital, Sector-22 for medical examination.
She said Akshay had consumed alcohol but he was not under its toxic influence at the time of examination.
Hearing the matter, Sachin Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), said that, “…an accused cannot be held liable under Section 185 of M.V. Act only on the basis of general opinion of the doctor.
Breath Analyzer Test or blood test are mandatory before filing Kalandra against the accused u/s 185 of M.V. Act which has not been done in the present case.
Merely because smell of alcohol was coming from the accused, does not mean that he was under the influence of liquor.
The accused can not be convicted only on the basis of general opinion of doctor, which is not corroborated by any scientific test…” Holding that prosecution lacks evidence, the court acquitted the accused.