Breath-analyser evidence alone, without medical corroboration or machine verification, cannot sustain conviction under Section 37(B).

On 11 February 2017, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Excise Department, acting on secret information, conducted a raid at Bhagat Tola, Araria.

The appellant allegedly attempted to flee and was apprehended. The raiding party allegedly detected the smell of alcohol from him and subjected him to a breath-analyser test, which recorded 25.4 mg/100 ml of alcohol. A breath-analyser report was prepared and the appellant was arrested.

The appellant was prosecuted under Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹1,00,000, and, in default, six months’ simple imprisonment.

During trial, the prosecution examined two Excise Department officials who were members of the raiding party and relied on the breath-analyser report, arrest memo, and forwarding report. No doctor was examined, and no blood or urine sample was collected or analysed.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, on the basis principally of the breath-analyser report?

Whether the absence of medical corroboration, including blood or urine analysis, independent public witnesses, and evidence regarding the calibration or accuracy of the breath analyser, rendered the conviction unsafe?

The Court applied Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which criminalises the relevant prohibited conduct involving alcohol, and the general criminal-law principle that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 (3) SCC 930, for the proposition that consumption of alcohol is to be ascertained through scientific testing, particularly blood and urine examination.

The Court also treated the absence of evidence concerning the breath analyser’s calibration, accuracy, and technical verification as material to the reliability of the prosecution evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution case rested substantially on the breath-analyser report and the testimony of two official witnesses.

Although the witnesses supported the prosecution version, the Court held that their evidence was not supported by independent corroboration.

No medical officer was examined, and no blood or urine samples were collected or analysed, despite the reliance placed on the alleged alcohol consumption.

Further, the prosecution produced no evidence establishing the breath analyser’s calibration, accuracy, or technical verification.

Applying the principle stated in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The conviction and sentence dated 21 February 2018 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 37(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, by extending the benefit of doubt.

The liability to pay the fine of ₹1,00,000 was extinguished, and, since the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from the liability of his bail bond.