The Gujarat High Court affirmed the conviction of a police constable who, while on duty, was found intoxicated—holding that such conduct is a serious breach of public trust and cannot be excused by the shields of office. The case involved Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol, who had challenged his conviction under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for being in an inebriated state during duty hours. The bench, led by Justice R. T. Vachhani, concluded that police officers, though vested with certain protections, are not above the law, and that intoxication while on duty gravely compromises the efficiency, integrity, and credibility of law enforcement.
The facts presented revealed that Raol, while posted on point duty, was observed with slurred speech, inability to maintain posture, and a strong smell of alcohol emanating from his person. He lacked any valid pass or permit for alcohol consumption. A blood sample was collected and sent for forensic analysis, which indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 0.0945% w/v ethyl alcohol—well beyond the legal permissible limit of 0.05%. An Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate convicted him under Section 66(1)(b), sentencing him to three months’ simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹500. He was acquitted of charges under Section 85(1)(3), which deals with intoxication to the extent of loss of self-control. His appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed, and he approached the High Court via a criminal revision application.
Raol’s counsel challenged the conviction, arguing that the acquittal under Section 85(1)(3) should have undermined the basis for conviction under Section 66(1)(b). He further contended that procedural safeguards under Rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules had not been properly followed—specifically, claims were made about delays in transporting the sample to the forensic laboratory and the reliability of sample handling. The defense asserted that such lapses rendered the FSL report unreliable.
The High Court rejected these contentions, observing that Section 85 and Section 66 pertain to distinct statutory ingredients: while Section 85 addresses the loss of self-control, Section 66 is focused solely on proof of alcohol consumption. The Court held that an acquittal under one does not automatically vitiate a conviction under the other. On the procedural front, the Court found that the record demonstrated compliance with Rule 4: disposable syringes had been used, preservative (sodium fluoride) added, labeling and sealing done properly, and the sample forwarded within the permissible period. The testimony of the medical officer corroborated these steps. The Court also opined that the delay of five days did not undermine the reliability of the report, considering that the forwarding was within the statutory window.
Emphasizing that the violation was aggravated by the fact that the accused was a police officer on duty, the bench observed that such misconduct impinges deeply on public confidence in law enforcement. The High Court stressed that leniency or remediation in such cases would send the wrong signal and weaken discipline. Without finding perverse or illegal errors in the subordinate courts’ judgments, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision. The Court upheld the minimum sentence as justified and necessary as a deterrent, ordering the convict to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence within two weeks.
The decision reinforces the principle that public servants, especially those in law enforcement, must maintain unimpeachable conduct, and that intoxication while performing state functions is a serious violation warranting criminal accountability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.