IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3549 of 2007(A) ------------------------- ST.2956/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: -------------------------- KRISHNAPRASAD, S/O.VENUGOPAL, VYLOPPILLY HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No.3549 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 2956/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam, seeks to quash Annexure A charge and all proceedings in the above S.T. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2007 he was found driving the scooter bearing registration No. KL7 BF 113 dangerously and in a drunken stage and he thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehilces Act, 1988. 3. With regard to the charge under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the prosecution seeks to rely on clause (a) thereof to contend that the petitioner had in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml of blood. To bring home the said charge the quantity of alcohol in the blood should be detected in CRL. M.C. NO. 3549/2007 : 2 : a test by a breath analyser. Admittedly the percentage of alcohol has not been detected in a breath analyser, but only by means of a certificate of drunkenness as per which the percentage of alcohol has not been estimated. Hence, the charge under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot stand. The proceedings S.T. No. 2956/2007 on the file of the JFCM-I, Ernakulam so far as it relates to Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall stand set aside. I am fortified in this conclusion by the decision reported in 2006 (4) KLT 747. 4. What now remains is the charge under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That is a matter for evidence and it is too early to say that the said charge is groundless. The Crl.M.C. is allowed in part as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C. NO. 3549/2007 : 3 :