Breath analyzer test not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court recently reaffirmed that a breath analyzer report cannot be considered conclusive proof of alcohol consumption [Narendra Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.]..A Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri made the observation while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against an individual charged under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The Court noted that the authorities overlooked the Supreme Court's judgment in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra in which it was held that factors such as the smell of alcohol on a person’s breath, an unsteady gait, incoherent speech, and dilated pupils are insufficient to conclusively establish alcohol consumption."Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and taking into consideration the entire materials placed on record, this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the authorities failed to consider the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and based on breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, FIR has been registered," the Court said..The case involved one Narendra Kumar Ram who was arrested on May 2, 2024, after being allegedly found in an intoxicated state at his temporary residence in Kishanganj. A breath analyzer test conducted by an excise team showed an alcohol concentration of 41 mg/100 ml, leading to his arrest and the registration of FIR under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016..Aggrieved, he moved the High Court seeking quashing of the case.He argued that the prosecution's case relied solely on the breath analyzer test which does not constitute conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. He contended that no confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted, despite such tests being mandatory under law. He further stated that he had visited an Electro Homeopathy Institute on April 16, 2024, for stomach treatment and had been prescribed homeopathic medicine containing an alcohol-based solvent, which could have led to the breath analyzer reading. The petitioner also argued that the case violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution..On the other hand, the State maintained that the petitioner was found in an inebriated condition and the breath analyzer test confirmed alcohol consumption. The prosecution contended that the case was lawfully registered, the breath analyzer test was accurate and no procedural violations occurred. It dismissed the petitioner’s allegations of mala fide action as baseless.After examining the arguments, the Patna High Court observed that breath analyzer report alone was not sufficient evidence to prosecute the petitioner.Accordingly, the FIR was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed..Advocates Shivesh Sinha, Piyush Parasar, Meghali Diksha, Amrit Kumar and Rabi Bhushan Prasad represnted the petitioner while Additional Advocate General Sarvesh Kumar Singh appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]