Patna HC reiterates SC verdict that breathalyser test cannot be conclusive proof of alcohol consumption

Patna (Bihar) [India], February 28 (ANI): The Patna High Court has reiterated the Supreme Court's verdict that a breathalyser (breath analyzer) test cannot be considered conclusive proof of alcohol consumption.
According to Patna High Court advocate Shivesh Sinha, the court passed an order stating that under the Excise Act, a First information report (FIR) cannot be filed solely based on the results of a breathalyser test.
Speaking to ANI on the Patna High Court's verdict on the breathalyser test, Advocate Shivesh Sinha said, "A Supreme Court's verdict from 1971 says that as per the medical jurisprudence, only conclusive proofs for alcohol consumption are blood test and urine test. In our case, the blood and urine tests were not done, and only on the basis of the breathalyzer test was an FIR filed. So, the Patna High Court has reiterated the Supreme Court's verdict that the breathalyzer test cannot be considered conclusive proof of alcohol consumption. The HC has said that under the Excise Act, an FIR cannot be filed only on this basis."
He further said that the centre would decide whether to bring an amendment to the Excise policy requiring those who are arrested in such cases to undergo medical tests to reveal the truth.
"There are limited resources and it is practically difficult to conduct medical test of everyone held under alcohol consumption," he further said.
In the High Court of Judicature at Patna, a Criminal Writ has been preferred for quashing Excise Police Station Case No. 559 of 2024 (Special Case No. 572 of 2024), dated May 02, 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
The factual matrix of this case is that the petitioner was allegedly found in an inebriated state at his temporary residence in Kishanganj on May 2, 2024, based on a breathalyser test conducted by an excise team. He was immediately arrested and an F.I.R. was registered against him, which is currently pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV cum Special Judge-2 (Excise), Kishanganj.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case is based solely on the breath analyzer test, which cannot be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol. He further submits that no confirmatory blood or urine test was conducted, which is mandatory under law.
Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the State and taking into consideration the entire materials placed on record, this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the authorities failed to consider the observation of the Supreme Court, and based on breath analyzer report, which cannot be said to be a conclusive proof of consumption of alcohol, FIR has been registered. (ANI)