Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Shibu vs The State Of Kerala Represented By on 29 October, 2007

K.P. Santhosh Kumar vs S.I. Of Police on 11 March, 2008

3. In order to substantiate the charge under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the prosecution CRL.M.C.924/2008 2 will have to prove that the accused person, while driving the vehicle in question, was having in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. detected in a test by a breath analyzer or was under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner was under the influence of a drug falling under clause (b) of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution relies on clause (a) of the said section to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. The certificate of drunkenness produced along with the complaint only shows that the petitioner consumed alcohol but was not under its influence. Admittedly the petitioner has not been subjected to a breath analyzer test to ascertain the fact that he was in a drunken state within the meaning of 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Without subjecting the petitioner to a breath analyzer test, the prosecution cannot sustain the charge for the CRL.M.C.924/2008 3 offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. {See Shibu v State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT 747) as also the decision dated 2.1.2008 in Crl.M.C.3813/2007}. Accordingly, S.T.2056/2007 on the file of the JFCM II, Aluva, so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is hereby quashed. The prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act will however, continue.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

K.P. Santhosh Kumar vs S.I. Of Police on 11 March, 2008

3. In order to substantiate the charge under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the prosecution CRL.M.C.924/2008 2 will have to prove that the accused person, while driving the vehicle in question, was having in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. detected in a test by a breath analyzer or was under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner was under the influence of a drug falling under clause (b) of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution relies on clause (a) of the said section to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. The certificate of drunkenness produced along with the complaint only shows that the petitioner consumed alcohol but was not under its influence. Admittedly the petitioner has not been subjected to a breath analyzer test to ascertain the fact that he was in a drunken state within the meaning of 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Without subjecting the petitioner to a breath analyzer test, the prosecution cannot sustain the charge for the CRL.M.C.924/2008 3 offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. {See Shibu v State of Kerala (2006(4) KLT 747) as also the decision dated 2.1.2008 in Crl.M.C.3813/2007}. Accordingly, S.T.2056/2007 on the file of the JFCM II, Aluva, so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is hereby quashed. The prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act will however, continue.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

Sebastian K.M vs State Of Kerala (Crime No.361/2008 on 23 June, 2008

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no breath analysor test having been conducted and there being no allegation even that the petitioner did have any quantity of alcohol found in the blood of the petitioner [and in the absence of even the semblance of an allegation that the petitioner had refused to take Crl.M.C. No. 1926 OF 2008 2 the breath analysor test or the blood test], the prosecution against him under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act must fall to the ground. The learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in Shibu v. State of Kerala [2006(4) KLT 747], which is authority for the proposition that without breath analysor test being conducted and in the absence of any explanation for not conducting such test the prosecution under Section 185 cannot lie.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Basant - Full Document

Philip vs Si Of Police on 21 July, 2008

The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 933 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeks to quash the proceedings so far as they relate to the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, a breath analyser test has not been conducted in this case so as to justify the indictment of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in the light of the decision in Shibu v State of Kerala 2006(4) KLT 747), the charge against the petitioner so far as it relates to Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being groundless is quashed. C.C. No. 933 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam shall continue so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document
1