'Intoxication On Duty Erodes Public Trust, Undermines Integrity': Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction Of Police Constable

A bench of Justice RT Vachhani made these observations while dismissing a criminal revision application filed by Mahendrasinh Balusinh Raol, a police constable convicted under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for being found in an inebriated state while on duty in 2003.

The case in brief

According to the prosecution, the revisionist, then serving as a constable on point duty, was found to be in an intoxicated condition. He was found to be unable to maintain bodily posture, had a slurred speech and a strong smell of alcohol was emanating from his mouth.

The constable could not produce any valid pass or permit for consumption of alcohol. Later, the FSL report of his blood sample revealed 0.0945% w/v ethyl alcohol, well above the statutory limit of 0.05% prescribed under the 'Explanation' to Section 66(1)(b) of the Prohibition Act.

In February 20210, a Metropolitan Magistrate in Ahmedabad convicted the constable under Section 66(1)(b) but acquitted him under Section 85(1)(3), holding that while alcohol consumption was proved, intoxication to the extent of loss of self-control or behaving indecently in public was not.

Thus, he was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹500 was imposed upon him. His appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, was dismissed in 2011. Consequently, he moved the HC.

Arguments

The applicant's counsel contended that the conviction under Section 66(1)(b) could not stand when the applicant had been acquitted under Section 85(1)(3).

It was urged that Rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules had not been followed, which mandates sterilization of syringe, mixing of preservative and safe custody of the sample.

It was also argued that there was a five-day delay between collection of blood sample (December 14) and receipt at FSL (December 19) and thus rendered the report unreliable.

The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the provisions of Rule 4 were duly complied with in this case as disposable syringes were used, preservatives were added and the phial was forwarded within the statutory seven days.

It was submitted that acquittal under Section 85(1)(3) did not affect conviction under Section 66(1)(b), as both provisions dealt with distinct ingredients. It was argued that while former deals with the loss of control, the latter is concerned with proof of alcohol consumption.

The prosecution further argued that the accused's position as a police constable on duty aggravated the offence and therefore, he deserved no leniency.

High Court's observations and order

Justice Panchal, after a detailed examination of the record, found that there was no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below. The Court, at the outset, observed thus:

"Police officers enjoy certain protections; however, they are not above the law. Being found intoxicated while on duty undermines the integrity and efficiency of police personnel and otherwise damages and erodes public trust in law enforcement agencies”.

The bench then referred to top court's verdict in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452 wherein it was held that revisional powers are discretionary and can only correct manifest errors or prevent miscarriage of justice, not substitute factual findings of lower courts unless perverse.

In its analysis, the High Court noted that the Magistrate had held that prosecution had proved alcohol consumption through the FSL report and consistent police testimonies were found regarding the applicant's inebriated state at the spot.

The court also found justification in the conclusion of the Court below that acquitted the accused under Section 85(1)(3) but convicted him under Section 66(1)(b), as, the court noted, statutory presumption arises irrespective of visible intoxication.

The bench further noted that Rule 4 of the Blood Test Rules was complied with as the concerned doctor's testimony confirmed the use of a disposable syringe, addition of sodium fluoride preservative, proper sealing, labelling and forwarding of the sample.

Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that found that the prosecution had established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt through reliable police witnesses, medical examination, FSL analysis and investigation.

Furthermore, Justice Panchal said that the accused's position as a police constable on duty aggravates the seriousness of the offence and that it amounted a grave act of misconduct.

In this regard, the Court referred to the rulings in the cases of State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992), Govt. of T.N. v. S. Vel Raj (1997), and DIG of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2013), where the Supreme Court upheld dismissal or punishment for similar conduct, stressing the need for impeccable discipline and integrity in police service.

Thus, rejecting the plea for leniency, the Court observed thus:

"The minimum sentence imposed is not only justified but necessary to deter similar acts. Grant of probation or reduction would send a wrong signal, undermining discipline and public confidence".

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision. The applicant was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to serve the remaining sentence.