S. 185 MV Act Threshold Must Be Scientifically Established to Prove Drunken Driving

Source: Uttarakhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court, in Amar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2026), partly allowed a criminal revision against a charge-framing order, holding that the smell of alcohol alone, without a blood test or breathalyser report confirming that the alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot establish drunken driving or sustain a charge under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 

What was the Background of Amar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2026) Case? 

• The revisionist was driving a jeep from Shri Badrinath Ji to Chamoli when the vehicle allegedly overturned after he lost control, causing injuries to several passengers and the death of one occupant. 
• During the medical examination conducted after the accident, doctors noted the smell of alcohol on the revisionist's breath. 
• Neither a breathalyser test nor a blood test was conducted to determine the actual alcohol concentration in his blood. 
• The Sessions Judge framed charges against the revisionist under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which the revisionist challenged before the High Court through a criminal revision. 
• The revisionist contended that under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person can be said to be driving under the influence of alcohol only if the alcohol content in the blood exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml, as established through a breath analyser or other prescribed scientific test. 
• It was further contended that the accident occurred because the vehicle's front tyre burst, and not on account of rash, negligent, or intoxicated driving. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the cause of the accident: The Court noted that the technical inspection report attributed the accident to the bursting of the left front tyre, and that the statements of eyewitnesses did not indicate that the revisionist was driving rashly, negligently, or under the influence of alcohol. 
• On the absence of scientific proof of intoxication: The Court observed that although the medical examination recorded the smell of alcohol, no scientific test had been conducted to establish that the alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory threshold under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
• On the charge under Section 105 BNS: Holding that the material collected during investigation did not prima facie disclose the ingredients necessary to frame a charge under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court set aside the charge under that provision. 
• On the remaining charges: The Court clarified that the charges under Sections 125(a), 125(b), and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita would continue to stand. 

What is Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 

Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs: 

• A person is deemed to be driving under the influence of alcohol if, at the time of driving or attempting to drive, the alcohol concentration in their blood, as detected by a breath analyser or other prescribed test, exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml of blood. 
• A person is also deemed to be driving under the influence of drugs if, at the time of driving, they are under the influence of a drug (whether or not prescribed medically) to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle. 
• Punishment on first conviction extends to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or both. 
• On a second or subsequent conviction within three years of the previous offence, punishment extends to imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or a fine which may extend to fifteen thousand rupees, or both