Prohibition of Probation in Alcohol Consumption Offenses Overrides Discretionary Sentencing for Young First-Time Offenders

On February 9, 2017, the Mendarda Police received information regarding the harassment of a citizen at Sasan village. Upon arrival, officers found the applicants in an inebriated condition, leading to their arrest and the registration of an FIR under Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

Blood samples were drawn by a Medical Officer and analyzed by a Forensic Laboratory, which confirmed the presence of alcohol.

The Trial Court convicted the applicants, sentencing them to 10 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹500.

The Sessions Judge subsequently upheld this conviction in an appeal.

The applicants moved the High Court in revision, challenging the procedural compliance of the blood tests and requesting the benefit of probation.

1. Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedures for blood collection and analysis as prescribed under Section 129A of the Act and the 1959 Rules.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the CrPC in light of Section 104-A of the Prohibition Act.

3. Whether the sentence imposed by the lower courts warrants modification based on the age and conduct of the applicants.

Section 66(1)(b) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, which penalizes the consumption of intoxicants.

Section 129A of the Act and Rules 3 and 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, which dictate the technical procedure for collecting and forwarding blood samples.

Section 104-A of the Gujarat Prohibition Act (as amended in 2017), which explicitly prohibits the application of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the CrPC to persons convicted under this Act.

The Court rejected the applicants' contention regarding procedural lapses, noting that the Medical Officer’s testimony clearly established that the blood samples were drawn and sealed in accordance with the 1959 Rules.

Although the independent pancha witnesses turned hostile, the Court held that the consistent evidence of the Medical Officer, supported by documentary evidence (Form A, Form B, and the Forensic Report), was sufficient to prove the concentration of alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regarding probation, the Court observed that the offence occurred on February 9, 2017—after the 2016 amendment—rendering the statutory bar under Section 104-A applicable and precluding any discretionary grant of probation.

However, noting that the applicants were young (21–29 years) first-time offenders with clean post-conviction records, the Court deemed it appropriate to exercise reformative discretion by modifying the custodial period while maintaining the conviction.

The 10-day simple imprisonment was reduced to "imprisonment till the rising of the Court" on July 28, 2026.

The fine was enhanced from ₹500 to ₹1,000 for each applicant, and the revision applications were disposed of with a direction to the applicants to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the modified sentence.