Anticipatory Bail

An application for bail is made when the accused is arrested and seeks relief to be released from the custody on furnishing some security. Anticipatory bail is, however, a different situation, which is the person making an application for bail even before being arrested. Section 438 of the Criminal procedure code was added by the amendment act of 2005 to the act. This amendment was made on the recommendation of the 41^st Law Commission Report.

WHAT IS ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

Section 438 deals with anticipatory bail which is an application filed by a person who apprehends to be arrested with regard to a non-bailable offense. Such an application after being approved protects the person from arrest at the sole discretion of the court. It protects the person from being arrested in a particular case. However, such protection cannot be passed for an unlimited time, if so, it is liable to be set aside.

Purpose:  The purpose of having such a provision of bail before the arrest is to protect the accused from unnecessary disgrace and harassment in case, the accusation is false. It is a temporary relief granted to a person. No humiliation should be caused to the person at the same time preserving the faith of the people in the judicial system.

In the case of Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1], the court highlighted that the power has to be exercised carefully and only in exceptional cases.

WHEN CAN ONE APPLY FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

The case of Adri Dharam Das v State of West Bengal,[2] explained that an interim order protecting from arrest would interfere with the investigation and therefore the expression used is “reason to believe” is used to indicate that there should be an apprehension of arrest based on reasonable grounds. Such grounds must be capable of being examined. Mere fear of the applicant is not sufficient for such an application to be made.

WHEN CAN ONE GET ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

While granting anticipatory bail, the court must take into consideration the personal liberty of the applicant on one side and the interest of investigation on the other side as it affects the interest of the public at large.

The following factors are taken into consideration, as laid down in the case of Mohammad Masood v State of Karnataka[3]:

1. The nature and seriousness of the offense;
2. The severity of the offence;
3. Nature of the evidence collected so far;
4. Character and behavior of the accused;
5. The probability that the accused might go absconding;
6. Probability and possibility of the repetition of such crime;
7. The likelihood of tampering and influencing the pieces of evidence and the witnesses respectively;
8. The interest of the people and the state.

After considering the factors, if the court is satisfied that such liberty shall not be misused and all the due process of law shall be followed, then it will grant an application of anticipatory bail. After having an anticipatory bail, the person can be released immediately after arrest.

POWER OF THE COURT

An applicant can make an application in the court of session and being unsuccessful there can move to the High Court for the same. Under the section, the courts have a wide discretionary power. There can be no strict universal application of these rules. Thus, it varies based on the facts of the case and remains unguided. The court on an application received by the prosecution can also cancel the bail and order for the arrest of the person, i.e. cancellation of bail.

The court ought to give a reason for its discretion of granting or not granting such bail. The guidelines, in this case, was reiterated, when the high court exercises power without reason, the Apex court needs to interfere to avoid any failure of justice.

The validity of anticipatory bail: An anticipatory bail is not under the blanket jacket of release for an indefinite period. Anticipatory bail becomes effective at the very moment when a person is arrested, and the person is free from the arrest until the bail is canceled. Anticipatory bail validity is from the day the arrest is made to the day till which court grants permission or the day it is canceled.

Application for anticipatory bail for an offense under section 498A: There is no express provision which provides for not granting an interim release from arrest. However, the thing of consideration is the statement of reason which has to be offered. In the case of Raghuvir Saran Agarwal v State of UP[4], the anticipatory bail was granted by the High Court in case of dowry death but was without any statement of reason, the Apex court intervened and set the same aside because the High Court didn’t provide a proper reason.

CONCLUSION

Anticipatory bail is simply aimed to grant protection to the applicant who may be inducted in a false case. This power vested with the court is an extraordinary power and needs to be used cautiously, and the ultimate aim of the judicial system should be to meet the ends of justice and to protect the interest of the people.

[1] AIR 1977 SC 366

[2] AIR 2005 SC 1057

[3] 2002 CrLJ 1760 (HP)

[4] (1998) 8 SCC 617

Section 306 IPC Abetment of Suicide

Scope of Section 306 of IPC

In India, suicide is not an offense while attempt to suicide is a punishable offense under Section 309 of IPC and so is Abetment of Suicide as mentioned under Section 306 of IPC. In this article, we will be emphasizing on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It states that any person who abets or assists a person in the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine[1]. Section 306 is often read with section 107 which describes the term “Abetment”.

Meaning of “Abetment”:

A person abets the commission of activity when:

1. He/ She instigates any person to do a thing;
2. He/ She engages with 1 or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or if an act or illegal act takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy; and
3. He/ She intentionally aides the doing of that thing by any act or illegal omission.

Here the 1st clause of section 107 refers to a person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of material fact which he is supposed to disclose voluntarily causes or procures a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of the thing.

The 2^nd and the 3^rd clause of the section in simple words signify that any person either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything to facilitate the commission of the act is said to aid the doing of the act. The offense of Abetment of Suicide is a non-bailable and cognizable offense which can be tried by the Court of Session.

The conditions mentioned for this offense seem a little vague and are prone to misuse so there have been various cases which have time and again amended the provisions and laid down guidelines for the application of this section. Here are a few landmark judgments to further illustrate in Section 306.

Important Case Laws in Section 306:

1.) Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi):

In this case, the Court dealt with the meaning of the term “instigation” and “goading”. The Court gave its opinion that the mala fide intention to provoke, incite or encourage the commission of an act by a person is mandatory. Each person’s suicidality pattern is different from others thus, it is not possible to lay down a straight-jacket formula while dealing such cases.[2] Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the case decided by the Court gave a clear indication that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, mens rea is an indispensable ingredient. It also requires the act to play an active part in pushing the deceased into such a position that he sees no option other than suicide.

 2. )  State of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal & Another[3]:

The Court gave out a caution that all Courts should be meticulous while assessing the facts and circumstances of the cases and also the evidence adduced in the trail for finding whether cruelty meted out to the victim persuaded one to end one’s life by committing suicide. If the Court finds out that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to the petulance and difference in domestic life an individual is ordinarily exposed to, the Court would not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused should be held guilty.

3.)  Ramesh Kumar v State of Chattisgarh[4]:

In this case, in a dispute between the husband and wife, the husband uttered to the wife, “You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. As a result of this statement, the wife committed suicide. The Court interpreted the term “instigation “ again and declared that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation, though the actual words must be used for such a consequence, yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered out of anger or emotion cannot be termed as “instigation”.

4.) Manikandan v State:

This has proved to be an imperative judgment in the history of landmark judgments. The Madras High Court held that merely being named in a Suicide Note does not invoke Section 306 IPC. The contents of the note need proper scrutinization to find out whether the accused falls within the ambit of abetment as mentioned under section 306. The Court further declared that “it is not the wish and willingness nor the desire of the victim to die, it must be the wish of the accused, it is the intention on the part of the accused that the victim should die that matters much. There must be a positive act on the part of the accused.”[5]

Conclusion

We thus see that this particular Section of IPC is quite sensitive and has to be used responsibly. The cases portray the intricacies involved in such penal provisions which can be misappropriated in the absence of stern directions from the Court. The decision of a weak-minded or a woman of frail mentality should not be misunderstood as abetment. Sometimes the victim might take the decision of committing suicide unaccompanied by any act or instigation. Thus it would not be fair to blame another person for such foolishness.

[1] Indian Penal Code, s 306

[2] Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State(Government of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 16 SCC 605

[3] [1994] 1 SCC 73

[4] [2001] 9 SCC 618

[5] Manikandan v State [2016] SC 316

You Will Never Thought That Knowing 5 Top White Collar Crime Cases In India You Never Know Could Be So Beneficial!

What is White Collar Crime?

White–collar crime or a corporate crime refers to financially motivated, nonviolent crime committed by government and businesses professionals. Below are some of the top 5 white collar crime cases in India.

1. Harshad Mehta Securities Fraud (1988-1995)  

Protagonist – Harshad Mehta 

Harshad Mehta was a stockbroker, and he established his security firm in 1990, “ Grow More Research & Asset Management Limited”. He was a reputed name in the stock market, and is considered the ‘Sultan of Dalal Street’, investors blindly followed Mehta’s footsteps.[1] He took a loan of huge amount from the bank and purchased the scrips at high prices, thereby creating a false market. He misused his status and manipulated the stock prices of certain scrips for his gain.[2] This resulted in unnatural pumping of money in the stock markets causing an abnormal rise in the price of these shares. This act of Harshad Mehta though being immoral was not illegal. The problem arose when Mehta obtained capital to invest in the stock market by misappropriating bank’s money. This misappropriation of money falls in the purview of money laundering. He earned approximately ₹ 5000 crores.[3] The then renowned journalist Sucheta Dalal exposed this scam. This unabated selling caused the market to loose ₹ 0.1 million in a day. This was the biggest ever crash which the Indian stock market had ever experienced. To curtail such transaction various changes were brought in SEBI rules and regulations.

2. Satyam Scandal: biggest ever corporate accounting fraud

Protagonist – B. Ramalingam Raju

This scam came into light on 7^th January, 20009 by way of confession letter written by B. Ramalingam Raju (Founder and chairman of Satyam Computers Services Limited) published in Times of India. The letter confessed about manipulating his books of account by overstating the assets and understating liabilities.[4]

The books of accounts are the reflection of the company’s financial standing. They act as an important tool on which investors can rely on before investing their money. Accounts books were manipulated to cheat investors and shareholders.

The whole scam cost approximately ₹14,000 crore and is considered to be an important factor which contributed to the recession of 2009.[5]

In this scandal, SEBI hit back strongly, holding Ramalinga Raju and nine major associates and guilty of insider trading, indulging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices. SEBI directed accused to pay approximately ₹3000 crore within 45 days and also debarred them from accessing the security markets in any way for 14 years.[6] SEBI managed to lash back strongly to ensure such a scam never happened again.

3. Ketan Parekh Security Scam

Protagonist – Ketan Parekh  

Parekh was involved in circular trading and stock manipulation through 1999-2001. He borrowed from banks like Global trust Bank and Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative bank and manipulated a host of stocks known as K-10 stocks.[7] The scandal amount was approximately ₹ 1,250 Crore. He has spent only one year in jail, but he has been debarred from trading in the Indian Stock market till 2017.

Although his name continues to haunt the street as he has been accused of playing from backstage. An Intelligence Bureau Report alleged Parekh and his associates to be engaged in circular and insider trading through front entities.

4. Saradha chit fund case

Protagonist- Sudipta Sen  

Saradha Group financial Scandal was a major financial scam and alleged political scandal caused by the collapse of Ponzi scheme run by Saradha Group, a consortium of 200 private companies that were believed to be running collective investment schemes popularly and wrongly referred to as Chit Fund.[8] This group collected around ₹200 to ₹300 billion from over 1.7 million depositors, promising a multiplied hefty sum in return in the form of cash or real estate and other assets.[9]

At least 10 Saradha group entities were alleged for committing fraud through public money-pooling activities. Amidst continuing public protest against the group’s alleged fraudulent activities, SEBI barred Saradha Realty India and its managing director Sudipta Sen from the securities market till it winds up all the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) and makes the refund, as the same amounts to CIS Violation.[10]

The central government through income tax department and Enforcement Directorate launched a multi-agency probe to investigate the Saradha Scam and similar Ponzi scheme. Later, in May 2014 Supreme Court of India, alleging possible international money laundering, severe regulatory failures an alleged political nexus, referred this case to CBI, India’s federal investigation agency.[11] Many prominent personalities were arrested for their involvement in the scam including two Members of Parliament- Kunal Ghosh, Srinjoy Bose, former West Bengal director general of police- Rajat Majumdar, a top football club official Debabrata Sarkar, Sports and Transport minister in the Trinamool Congress government Madan Mitra.

This scam is often compared to the Sanchayita investment scam, a multi-crore rupees scam that occurred in West Bengal in the 1970s, complaints related to the same have to lead to the formation of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1968.[12]

5. Punjab National Bank Fraud

Protagonist- Nirav Modi  

Nirav Modi is a diamantaire, elite jewelry designer and India’s 85^th richest person.

Bank said that Modi and the companies linked to him colluded with its officials to get guarantees or Letter of Undertaking to help fund buyer’s credit from other overseas banks.[13]

PNB’s preliminary investigation showed that two officials of the bank had fraudulently issued Lou’s to the said firms without following the due procedure. These Los were then transmitted across the SWIFT messaging system, based on which the credit was offered to the said firms.[14]

PNB alleged that the funds ostensibly so raised for the purchase and sale of diamonds were not used for the purpose.

PNB issued to the stock exchange, about the detection of the fraudulent and unauthorized transaction. PNB has incurred $1.8 billion fraud, one of the largest to be detected in Indian Banking Sector.[15]

Read Also: Taxpayers Don’t Fall For These Types of Tax Scams in India

[1] “THE GROWTH OF SEBI – FROM HARSHAD MEHTA TO SUBRATA ROY” (PDF) <https://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/73899378-The-growth-of-sebi-from-harshad-mehta-to-subrata-roy.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Datta D and Datta D, “Ramalinga Raju And The Incredible Story Of India’s Greatest White Collar Crime” (HuffPost India July 15, 2016) <https://www.huffingtonpost.in/devangshu-datta/ramalinga-raju-and-the-in_b_7032688.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nimmi (KETAN PAREKH SCAM) <https://www.indianmirror.com/indian-industries/indian-scams/ketanparekhscam.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[8] “Here’s Why Saradha Was Not a Chit Fund but a Ponzi Scheme” (first post-December 20, 2014) <https://www.firstpost.com/business/heres-why-saradha-was-not-a-chit-fund-but-a-ponzi-scheme-739597.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[9] Ibid

[10] “Saradha Chit Fund Scam: Mercedes of Sudipta Sen’s Son Seized” (The Economic TimesMay 7, 2013) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/saradha-chit-fund-scam-mercedes-of-sudipta-sens-son-seized/articleshow/19937529.cms?from=mdr> accessed May 13, 2019.

[11] Reporters BS, “SC Jolt for Mamata: CBI to Probe Saradha Scam” (Business StandardMay 9, 2014) <https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc-jolt-for-mamata-cbi-to-probe-saradha-scam-114050900345_1.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[12] Mukherji UP, Bandyopadhyay K, and TNN, “Sanchayita Haunts Saradha Victims | Kolkata News-Times of India” (The Times of IndiaMay 13, 2019) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Sanchayita-haunts-Saradha-victims/articleshow/19656723.cms> accessed May 13, 2019.

[13] “Nirav Modi Case: How PNB Has Defrauded of Rs 11,400 Crore” (Business TodayMarch 15, 2018) <https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/banks/nirav-modi-case-pnb-fraud-11400-crore-scam-ed-cbi-raid/story/270708.html> accessed May 11, 2019.

[14] Desk BQ, “The Nirav Modi-PNB Fraud Case: Everything We Know So Far” (BloombergQuintFebruary 17, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/the-nirav-modi-pnb-fraud-case-everything-we-know-so-far> accessed May 11, 2019.

[15] Nair V, “The Nirav Modi Case: How The $1.8 Billion Fraud Detected At PNB Unfolded” (BloombergQuintFebruary 19, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/pnb-fraud/the-nirav-modi-case-how-the-18-billion-fraud-detected-at-pnb-unfolded> accessed May 11, 2019.

Original blog is published in Legodesk please read full blog for legal service

Manage your Legal practice with Legodesk helps you to manage your clients, do legal research, grow your practice and much more 

Never Underestimate The Influence Of Criminal Provision Of Defamation – Section 499 And 500 Of IPC

Defamation is an oral or written statement that injures someone’s reputation. Section 499 and Section 500 of IPC deals with the defamation as an offense. It is considered as the statement of fact, which is unprivileged and not true, that must harm someone’s reputation, either by spoken or written, and the same must be published before the third party. The term Defamation covers mainly the false allegation or communication, which tarnished the reputation or decreased the respect that they hold in the society at large. Written defamation is known as “libel,” which is also considered as the permanent form of the defamation,  while spoken defamation is known as “slander.” Both forms of defamation, i.e., libel and slander, derive its origins from English common law, but they are not treated as distinct from each other in Indian jurisprudence.

Every person has a right to have his reputation preserved free from the violation. This right of reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of each and every person as part of the right of personal security under article 21 of the Constitution of India and also considered as one of the most important natural rights. An affection towards reputation inspires people to do great things, acquire fame and name, which is the mainspring of life in every walk of life. The main objective of the provision of the defamation is to protect one’s reputation, honor, and integrity in society.

Defamation in India at present

In India, defamation can be seen as both Civil as well as criminal offenses. The Sufferer or the person who got defamed is offered a legal remedy in both civil as well as criminal. In civil law, the remedy is covered under the Law of Torts where sufferer or victim may go to High Court or any subordinate courts for compensation or damages in monetary form and c, Section 499 provides the definition of “Defamation” and  legal remedy which is the punishment of simple imprisonment which may exceed up to 2 years or Fine or Both, defined under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862.

Section 499 of the IPC defined as

A person or anyone, by his words either spoken or  which shown as a clear intention to be read, or by signature or by any kind of representations which is visible, makes or publishes any charges or allegation which refers any person, intending to harm, or  have knowledge or having a reason to make believe that these kinds of allegation will harm, the reputation or dignity of such person, is to be understood by, except in the case hereinafter expected to defame that person.

The section further goes on to provide some other vital explanation to determine what would create or constitute defamation. Defamation under the IPC may constitute an imputation of a deceased person that would harm the reputation of that person if he is alive and showing clear intention which may be hurtful to the feelings and emotions of their family or any other relatives. It may also amount to defamation to make an imputation refers to an association or company or any collection of persons as such.

The Section however also state that no imputation is said to injures a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the respected character or moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of their caste or of their calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a disgusting state, or a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Section 499 of the IPC also explain some exceptions. These include “imputation of truth” which is essentially required for the “welfare of the public” and thus has to be published, on conduct of government officials which involves public duty, the act of any person touching any public question and merits of the public performance, if someone publishes reports of proceedings of Courts, merits of the case decided in Court of law or act and conduct of witnesses and others concerned with, etc.

Defamation under section 499 and Section 500 IPC vs. Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a): –

The law of the defamation is not punishable in many countries or as we can understand by the way that defamation laws are not criminal laws in some countries of the world, for that the same reason a renowned lawyer-politician Mr. Subramanian Swamy along with several other petitioners (Rahul Gandhi, Mr. Kejriwal, etc.) came together to challenge the constitutionality of criminal defamation, i.e., (Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC) before the apex court i.e., Supreme Court.

 a)- Reason behind the Criminal Provision of Defamation (u/s 499/500) was challenged: –

The basic reason was that it was an unreasonable restriction on the constitutionally-guaranteed Right, i.e., Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code gives us the Right to sue for Defamation if  the person’s reputation was damaged or intended to damage by any other, and the petitioner challenged this on the ground that this was prima facie infringement of Freedom of Speech and Expression provided by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a).

 b)- Some of the arguments that why this criminal provision of defamation(u/s 499/500) must declare unconstitutionally: –

Firstly, Criminal provision of the defamation (u/s 499/500) do not constitute a “reasonable restriction” on speech, and even truth is not an exact defense because the defense only works when the statement is for the public good, which is a question of fact by the court. This could be arbitrary because Instead of making the plaintiff prove that the accused made a false statement, section 499 gives the accused the burden of proving that the statement was not only true but also for the welfare of the public at large.

Secondly, mere on the allegation, a magistrate may issue criminal process that the accused conspired with the person who actually made the allegedly defamatory written statements, also  a criminal suit u/s 499 can be filed even for speech given by the political leaders, which is considered as the most protected speech to sustain democracy.

Lastly, there is also an argument that it is not clear even why the criminal provision of defamation has existed because petitioners are in the opinion that civil remedy is more than sufficient for that.

 c)- Court Held: –

However,  the apex court of the country, i.e., the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation (u/s 499/500) and its constitutional validity. The judgment delivered on May 13, 2016, by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India (“Judgement“) was delivered by Justice Dipak Misra, with Justice Prafulla C. Pant. The Judgment in the case started by analyzing the meaning of the terms ‘defamation’ and ‘reputation’, and their interaction of these terms with the right of the freedom of speech and expression mentioned under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The reputation of an individual must be secured as it was included in the protection of ‘dignity’, which is a very important aspect of the constitutionally protected right to life under article 21 of COI. Also, Defamation, in the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article (19)(1)(a)  is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Judgement also recognizes principles of reasonable restriction are that the restrictions which should serve the interest of public and should not be excessive; and held that reputation of an individual is a basic element enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and balancing of fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.

In addition, the court also emphasize for upholding the validity of the criminal defamation is online defamation, in the age of the Internet it can be effectively countered only by making it a criminal offense, and this particular law is concerning part of the state’s “compelling interest” to protect the dignity and reputation of citizens.

Finally, the Supreme Court holds that this criminal provision of defamation is not disproportionate. The reasonableness and its proportionality of a restriction are examined from the standpoint of the interest of the general public, and not from the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed. Applying this, the Court adjudged that criminal defamation law (u/s 499/500) to be proportionate. Further, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition which challenges the constitutionality of the criminal provision of defamation, holding that it was a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

 A person is bound to allow the existence of something that one may dislike or disagrees within other words -criticism, dissent, and discordance, but not expected to tolerate a rush which may tarnish the reputation of that person. (SC in Subramanian Swamy V. The Union of India [AIR 2016 SC 2728]  ).

Original blog is published at LEGODESK  please read the blog for more content and for legal help and service.

Legodesk is a legal practice management tool using which lawyers can manage their matters, win new clients and do their legal research all in one platform. Legodesk’s unique case management features helps to keep your legal practice organized and accessible everywhere.

Seven Questions About Caught Drunken Driving? All You Should Answer Truthfully

Introduction

Alcoholic beverages have been increasingly used in the societies which are creating positive and negative; short-term long term, social, medical, and cultural impact. Like other western countries, the laws in India also make driving and drinking a punishable offense. The only exception can be having BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) within the permissible limit.

It is a well-known fact of the number of road accidents which occur everywhere due to reasons like drunkenness, driver’s fault, rash, and negligent driving, etc. In the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v K. Balu and Anr[1], the judgment highlighted the number of road accidents due to the influence of alcohol/drugs is 16, 298 for the year 2015, i.e., 3.3 percent of the total number of road accidents for the year.

Unquestionably, the statistics documented under the category of drunk driving is under-reported so as not to tamper the right of the victim to receive compensation. So, the figure recorded, and the figure on record has a significant difference.[2]

Read Also: Underage? Still Drinking Alcohol!

Permissible limit

It is pertinent to know what amounts to drunken driving and what is the permissible limit. The BAC permissible in India is 0.03%, i.e., 30 mg per 100 ml of blood. The BAC permissible varies from country to country. For example, in countries like Pakistan Alcohol is completely banned, China has BAC as 0.02%, and the UK and Canada have permissible BAS as 0.08%

In the case of Alister Anthony Pareira v State of Maharashtra[3], the accused was charged with causing the death of seven people and injuries to eight people who were asleep on the footpath of Carter Road, Bandra (West).  Upon Medical examination of the accused, the content of alcohol was 0.1125 w/v of Ethyl Alcohol. The High Court convicted the accused of Maharashtra, the basis of a conviction being his drunken state. But nobody cross-examined that drunken state which was stoutly argued upon on behalf of the accused at the stage of appeal. But the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal because the BAC was higher than permissible, and no examination or cross-examination can render the fact void.

All the cases of Drunk Driving are registered under Driving under Influence (DUI) cases. On the eve of the new year 2019, Hyderabad itself registered as high as 2499 cases of DUI during checking on the occasion, and 873 cases were recorded by the Pune Police Stations, Mumbai 455 cases and Delhi 509 cases.[4]

How to identify intoxication

The case of Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v State of Maharashtra[5] is an important highlight because it places reliance on medical evidence and not on mere physical examination. The accused charged with rash and negligent driving under the state of alcohol. His state of alcohol contended only based on the opinion of the Doctor who conducted the examination. His breath was smelling of alcohol, gait unsteady incoherent speech, and dilated pupils. The accused was not subjected to the urine test. The blood samples were collected, but its report was never produced before the prosecution. The notion of accused being in a drunken state was denied by the court to meet the ends of justice. Thus the intoxication should be identified through breath analyzer, blood test, and urine test.

Is breath analyzer the only way to prove that a person is drunk?

As per Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which indicates a permissible limit BAC of 30 mg%, “in a test by a breath analyzer.” The wording of the section is clear the necessity of the test by breath analyzer. The police officer may also take the person to a nearby place to conduct breath and blood tests.

In the case of State Tr.P.S Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v Sanjeev Nanda[6], where the accused was held guilty under Section 85 of Indian penal Code and Section 185(1) of the M.V Act, 1988 to show intoxication. It was contended on behalf of the Accused that since breath analyzer test is the test statutorily recognized for drunken driving, which was not conducted for the Accused, no reliance can be placed on the state of intoxication of the accused.

Punishment and fine: Section 185 and 188 of the MV Act

If the BAC is 30 mg per 100 ml of Blood, then does not amount to any offense. If BAC is within 30mg-60mg per 100 ml of blood, it shall attract imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to Rs. 2000 or both.

If BAC is ranging from 60mg-150mg per 100 ml of Blood, imprisonment for 1 year or fine of Rs. 4000 or both can be imposed. Repeating of offense within a period of three years will be punishable with imprisonment, which can extend up to 3 years and/or fine Rs. 8000.

If the BAC is above 150 mg per 100 ml of blood, then it attracts imprisonment of 2 years and/or fine of Rs. 5000. Repeating this offense will attract a penalty of Rs. 10000, cancellation of license and jail term.

Way Forward

The State and center have been working progressively towards reducing the number of causalities caused due to drunkenness. The polices implemented by the union government of ban of Alcohol within 500 meters of the National Highways, is a measure to curtail down the number of road accidents.

In action taken by Hyderabad in 2016, where it is required by the bar authorities to make sure a pool of cabs is available near the bar to take home drunken people. This action was initiated after Kolkata took stern action when a fatal accident of an actress was reported.[7]

As per the recommendation of the World Health organization, all member governments should reduce the per capita consumption, which can be done by reducing the availability of such alcoholic beverages. This action can be taken in lieu of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.[8]

Conclusion

A zero-tolerance policy must be devised and enforced for the proper clarification of the intent of the parliament. Identifying the places most vulnerable and setting up proper checkpoints have help to reduce the number of accidents, but the problem is yet to be solved from its very roots. The permissible limit remains 0.03% and should be abided by not to get caught by the police.

[1] Civil appeal Nos .12164-12166 of 2016

[2] R.N. Mathur v State (Finance Department)

[3] Criminal Appeal Nos. 1318-20 of 2007

[4] https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/drunk-driving-cases-huge-drop-on-new-year-s-eve-2000-booked-pan-india-119010300133_1.html

[5] Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1970

[6] S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3292 of 2010

[7] https://www.thebetterindia.com/100812/india-drunk-driving-efforts-initiatives-world-lessons/

[8] https://www.alcoholwebindia.in/content/regulation-legislation