IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 627 of 2010() ------------------------ ST.186/2010 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... (CRIME NO.1066/2009 OF UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION) .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SASI,S/O.KUNJUMON, AGED 33 YEARS, OLIPURATH HOUSE, MLA ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR. BY ADVS. MR.NAVEEN THOMAS, MR.RENJITH THOMAS, MR.C.R.SANISH. RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATOPM. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.627 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 30th March 2010 O R D E R Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken for the offences under Sections 184 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, on Annexure-A2 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police Udayamperoor police station, contending that ingredients of the offence under Sections 184 or 185 of Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Case against petitioner in Annexure-A2 final report is that on 23/12/2009 at about 6.20 p.m, petitioner Crmc 627/10 2 was found driving the vehicle, KL-7.Q- 6220, along Puthiyakavu-Kareeckadu road in a zig-zag manner dangerously. It is alleged that petitioner was under the influence of liquor and has committed the offence under Sections 184 and 185(a) of M.V.Act. 4. Annexure-A3 certificate of drunkenness issued by Dr.Bejeesh, shows that petitioner was examined by the doctor at 6.55 p.m on the same day, when he was produced before the doctor by the police, on examination doctor found that though petitioner had consumed alcohol he was not under its influence. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to attract an offence under Section 185(a) there should be evidence to prove that petitioner was driving or Crmc 627/10 3 attempting to drive motor vehicle and at that time there was alcohol in his blood exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood, detected in a test by breach analyser. Admittedly, no blood test was conducted and there is no material to show that when petitioner was driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, his blood contained alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. In such circumstances, though he consumed alcohol when he was not under the influence of liquor, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 185(a) of M.V.Act. Hence, continuation of the prosecution for the said offence is only an abuse of process of the court. 5. But I cannot agree with the submission that offence under Section 184 Crmc 627/10 4 of M.V.Act is not attracted. Under Section 184, whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which may reasonably be expected to be in the place is punishable as provided therein. When the final report shows that petitioner was driving the vehicle in a zig- zag manner and that too in a manner likely to cause danger to the public, it cannot be said that Section 184 is not attracted. Hence prosecution for the said offence cannot be quashed. Petition is allowed in part. Crmc 627/10 5 Cognizance taken on Annexure-A2 final report taken cognizance in S.T.186/2010 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, to the extent of the offence under Section 185(a) of M.V.Act is quashed. But cognizance taken under Section 184 of M.V.Act is valid and the learned Magistrate can proceed with the trial for that offence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.