An uncorroborated breathalyser report alone cannot establish guilt under Section 37(b).

On 28 June 2018 at approximately 8:50 p.m., near NH-2 towards Khera village, Dehri, Rohtas, the appellant was allegedly apprehended by an Excise patrol party in a drunken condition on the basis of secret information.

A breath-analyser test allegedly recorded blood alcohol content of 53.8 mg/100 ml.

A seizure list, breath-analyser report, and prosecution report were prepared.

The appellant was prosecuted under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

During trial, three prosecution witnesses, all connected with the Excise Department, were examined, and the breath-analyser report and other documents were exhibited.

The Special Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹50,000, with three months’ imprisonment in default of payment.

The appellant challenged the conviction in appeal, contending, inter alia, that there was no independent witness, medical or laboratory corroboration, or evidence regarding the breath analyser’s calibration and accuracy.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had consumed liquor or was intoxicated so as to attract Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Whether an uncorroborated breath-analyser report, without production or technical verification of the machine and without blood, urine, or medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Whether the appellant’s signatures on the prosecution documents could constitute substantive proof of the offence.

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

It held that a breath-analyser report is not, by itself, conclusive proof of consumption of liquor, particularly where its reliability and technical accuracy are not established.

Relying on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1971 (3) SCC 930, the Court reiterated that alcohol consumption may be ascertained through blood and urine examination.

The Court also applied the evidentiary principle that signatures or acknowledgments on documents do not prove the truth of the documents’ contents or substitute for substantive proof of the offence.

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

No doctor was examined, and no blood or urine sample was collected or analysed.

Further, the prosecution produced no evidence regarding the calibration, accuracy, or technical verification of the breath analyser.

In the absence of such safeguards and corroborative evidence, the breath-analyser reading could not conclusively establish consumption of liquor.

The fact that the witnesses were official witnesses was not treated as automatically discrediting their testimony, but their evidence, unsupported by independent or scientific proof, was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof.

The appellant’s signatures on the documents merely evidenced acknowledgment or receipt and did not establish the truth of the alleged intoxication or the commission of the offence.

Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 37(b) 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.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.