SC Judgment Didn't Hold Breath Analyzer Test Is Inconclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Clarifies

The Patna High Court has held that the Supreme Court in the case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani -Vs- State of Maharashtra(1971) did not hold that a breath analyser test is inconclusive proof of alcohol consumption.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar held that the SC judgment did not lay down any proposition that the Breath Analyser Report is not the conclusive proof of consuming liquor by a person.The observation was made while dealing with an appeal against a single judge order by a policeman, who was dismissed from service on allegations of consuming liquor during duty hours.The appeal had been filed by the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, challenging his dismissal under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The case of the State was based primarily on a breath analyser test, pursuant to which the officer was arrested and subjected to departmental proceedings culminating in his dismissal.Before the Single Judge, it was contended by the petitioner that no blood or urine test had been conducted, and that reliance solely on the breath analyser report was insufficient to conclusively establish consumption of alcohol. It was also argued that relevant documents were not supplied and no Presenting Officer was appointed, in violation of Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The Single Judge, relying on Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, had held that a breath analyser report is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption and set aside the dismissal order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.Challenging the same, the Advocate General submitted that the Single Judge had misread the Supreme Court's decision in Bachubhai, contending that the said judgment did not lay down any such proposition regarding breath analyser tests.The Division Bench agreed with the State to the limited extent that the reliance placed by the Single Judge on Bachubhai was not entirely accurate, observing that the Supreme Court in that case had not conclusively ruled on the evidentiary value of breath analyser tests. It noted:“On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the submission of the learned Advocate General that no issue was raised for determination in that case as to whether the Breath Analyzer Test was the conclusive proof of holding a person to have consumed liquor or not, is correct…In the said case, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was noted down in paragraph no. 4 of the order which was a case where Special Leave Appeal was limited to the question of sentence.""Thereafter in paragraph no. 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that since it could not be definitely held that the appellant was drunk at the time of the occurrence of the accident, therefore, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment passed against the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone. This decision, in our humble view, does not lay down any proposition as has been held by the learned Single Judge that the Breath Analyzer Report is not the conclusive proof of consuming liquor by a person,” it added.However, the Court found that the departmental proceedings were vitiated on independent grounds, particularly due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, including failure to appoint a Presenting Officer and non-supply of relevant documents. The Court further noted that Section 75(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act recognises the admissibility of breath analyser reports, and that such tests can be used to detect alcohol content. At the same time, considering that the respondent had already retired from service and that the disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally flawed, the Court declined to remand the matter for fresh enquiry.Relying on earlier Division Bench judgments, the Court reiterated that remand is not to be used as a mechanism to cure defects arising from negligence or procedural lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority.Accordingly, the Court held that no interference was warranted and dismissed the appeal.Case Title: State of Bihar and Ors v. Bhagwan Singh.Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 27 of 2025 (in CWJC No. 3073 of 2022).Appearance: Advocate General Mr. P.K. Shahi and Mr. Manoj Kumar appeared for the State. Mr. Upendra Mishra, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, and Mr. Ravi Kumar appeared for the Respondents.Click Here To Read/Download Order

SC Judgment Didn't Hold Breath Analyzer Test Is Inconclusive Proof Of Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Clarifies

Rushil Batra

Tags