A breath-analyser report alone is insufficient to prove alcohol consumption beyond reasonable doubt.

During evening patrol on 9 October 2017, police received information that a person was creating a nuisance while intoxicated.

The police found the appellant, who allegedly fled and was apprehended.

A breath-analyser test recorded alcohol content of 74 mg/100 ml, and a case was registered under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹6,00,000.

He appealed, challenging the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offence under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

2. Whether the breath-analyser report, without medical or other corroborative evidence and without evidence establishing the machine’s reliability, was sufficient to sustain the conviction

The Court considered Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, under which the appellant had been convicted.

Relying on Manju Devi v. State of Bihar (citation not provided) and Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, it treated a breath-analyser report as not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption and referred to blood or urine testing as a means of ascertaining consumption.

The prosecution was required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Although police witnesses supported the appellant’s apprehension and the generation of the breath-analyser report, the prosecution presented no independent public witness or medical examination, obtained no blood or urine samples, and produced no evidence concerning the machine’s calibration, accuracy, or technical verification.

In those circumstances, the report was not conclusive proof of the offence, and the appellant’s signatures on documents did not establish the truth of their contents or substitute for substantive proof.

The Court therefore found the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

As he was on bail, he was discharged from the liability of his bail bond.