How Do You Ensure Breathalysers Are Tamper Proof? Karnataka High Court Asks Police In Plea To Quash Drunk Driving Case

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday orally observed that there should be no tampering with breathalysers used by the traffic police, to check if a motorist is drunk and driving.

Justice B M Shyam Prasad said thus while issuing notice to the State and Commission of Police (Traffic) on a petition filed by one Ajay Kumar Kashyap C, fined ₹10,000 on charges of drunk driving.

The petitioner's car was intercepted by the traffic police to check for drunk driving. He claims that while the first two times the analyzer displayed a negative outcome, he was asked to blow again and this third time the analyzer displayed positive results, even though he wasn't drunk.

He alleged that the traffic policemen did not calibrate the instrument before testing him and when he asked the Policemen to accompany him to get a blood test done from a nearby Government hospital, they refused and instead charged him and seized his vehicle. Later, when he got himself tested at a private diagnostic center, he claims, no signs of alcohol were found.

“We want to know from somebody what is the mechanism put in place to see that these breath analysers are properly monitored and they are tamper proof,” the Court asked at the outset today.

The punishment for a first time offender of drunk driving is ₹10,000 fine or six months imprisonment and for the second time offender is ₹15,000.

“There are serious consequences...petitioner perhaps may be justified in asserting that the breath analysers are prone to tampering, exposing the commuters to an unjustified allegation of drunk driving, leading to proceedings and consequences...We want to see in writing on the mechanism that is in place by the police department to ensure that these analysers are checked regularly for ensuring there is no tampering,” the Court thus said.

During the hearing, the Petitioner also claimed that he is being repeatedly called to the police station for inquiry, notwithstanding the medical certificate. 

Following which, the Court issued the notice on the petition ordered no precipitative action. The matter will be next heard on September 3.

Appearance: Advocates Medha Hegde and Vikram Simha for Petitioner.