A breathalyser report alone cannot sustain conviction for drunkenness without medical corroboration.

On 15 May 2017, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the appellant was allegedly apprehended at Sour Bazar Zero Mile, Saharsa, during an Excise Department raid and was suspected of being intoxicated.

A breath analyser allegedly recorded a BAC of 81.0 mg/100 ml. A search-list and arrest memo were prepared, and a written report was submitted by the Excise Assistant Sub-Inspector, leading to registration of Special Case No. 134 of 2017 under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution examined three official witnesses and exhibited the breath analyser report, search-list, arrest memo, and written report.

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

In appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability and sufficiency of the breath analyser evidence, the absence of medical or independent corroboration, and the failure to examine public witnesses.

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

2. Whether an uncorroborated breath analyser report, unsupported by medical evidence, blood or urine testing, proof of calibration, or independent public testimony, was sufficient to establish that the appellant had consumed liquor or was in a state of drunkenness.

3. Whether the appellant’s signatures on the prosecution documents constituted substantive evidence of his guilt.

The Court applied Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, requiring the prosecution to establish the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying on Manju Devi v. State of Bihar and subsequent judgments, the Court held that a breath analyser report is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption.

It also relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, (1971) 3 SCC 930, for the principle that alcohol consumption is to be ascertained through blood and urine examination of the person suspected of having consumed alcohol.

The Court further applied the evidentiary principle that signatures acknowledging or receiving documents do not, by themselves, prove the truth of the documents’ contents or establish guilt.

Although the prosecution witnesses supported the appellant’s apprehension and the preparation of the breath analyser report, the Court found that the evidence lacked reliable corroboration.

No doctor was examined, no blood or urine samples were collected or analysed, and no evidence established the calibration, accuracy, or technical functioning of the breath analyser.

Further, despite the alleged occurrence taking place at a busy public location, no independent public witness was examined.

Applying Manju Devi and Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani, the Court held that the breath analyser result alone could not conclusively prove consumption of liquor or drunkenness.

The appellant’s signatures on the exhibits merely indicated acknowledgment or receipt and could not substitute for substantive proof of the offence.

Accordingly, the prosecution failed to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, by extending to him the benefit of doubt.

If in custody, he was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case; if on bail, his bail bonds were ordered to stand discharged.