Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction for Alcohol Consumption by On-Duty Police Constable
Police Constable Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol's conviction under Bombay Prohibition Act sustained despite acquittal on public indecency charge.
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has upheld the conviction of Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol, a police constable, under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for consuming alcohol while on duty. The judgment was delivered by Justice R. T. Vachhani, emphasizing the importance of discipline and integrity within the police force.
The case dates back to December 14, 2003, when Raol was found in an inebriated state during his night patrolling duty at Pirana Toll Naka. A blood test revealed an ethyl alcohol concentration of 0.0945% w/v in Raol's blood, exceeding the permissible limit of 0.05% under the Prohibition Act. Despite the acquittal under Section 85(1)(3), which requires proof of public indecency or loss of self-control, the conviction was upheld due to the distinct nature of the offences and the statutory presumption arising from the blood alcohol concentration.
The defense argued procedural lapses in the blood collection and delays in the sample reaching the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). However, the court found compliance with the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959, with no evidence of tampering during the chain of custody. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the minor delay was not fatal, as seals were intact, and the sample reached FSL within the prescribed seven-day limit.
Justice Vachhani highlighted the need for strict discipline among police personnel, noting that leniency could undermine public trust in law enforcement agencies. The judgment refers to Supreme Court precedents that emphasize severe consequences for police misconduct involving intoxication.
The ruling affirms the trial court's decision to impose a minimum sentence of three months' simple imprisonment, rejecting probation due to the seriousness of the offence committed by a law enforcement officer.
This judgment serves as a stern reminder of the accountability expected from police personnel and the legal repercussions of violating the Prohibition Act, reinforcing the message that police officers are not above the law.
Bottom Line:
Conviction for consumption of alcohol under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 is valid even if the accused is acquitted under Section 85(1)(3) of the same Act, as the two offences have distinct ingredients.
Statutory provision(s): Section 66(1)(b), Section 85(1)(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949; Rule 4 of the Bombay Prohibition (Medical Examination and Blood Test) Rules, 1959; Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2788751
