The Patna High Court ruled on Wednesday that a breath analyzer report is not conclusive proof of liquor consumption [Manju Devi vs State of Bihar].
Single-judge Justice Bibek Chaudhuri stated that blood and urine tests are the correct methods to determine if a person has consumed alcohol.
“Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State and on perusal of the entire material on record, this Court notes that a breath analyzer report is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption,” the Court held.
The ruling came on a plea filed by the wife of a clerk from a sub-divisional office in Kishanpur, who was dismissed from service by an order on January 11, 2020.
The clerk was initially arrested on February 5, 2018, for reporting to work under the influence of alcohol, violating the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
In his defense, the clerk, who died during the pendency of his plea, contended that he was suffering from cold and cough and had consumed cough syrup containing alcohol.
The judge noted that after the arrest, no blood or urine samples were taken to examine the alcohol content in his body.
“In this case, there is no allegation that at the time of arrest, the original petitioner (clerk) had an unsteady gait, was speaking incoherently, or had dilated pupils. The Supreme Court has held that merely smelling of alcohol is insufficient to conclude that a person has consumed alcohol. Therefore, I have no choice but to hold that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the Supreme Court judgments and based its punishment order on the breath analyzer report, which cannot be considered conclusive proof of alcohol consumption,” Justice Chaudhuri observed in the order passed on June 19.
