Quashing Of Drunken Driving Charge U/S 185 MV Act Doesn't Nullify Prosecution Initiated U/S 279 IPC For Rash Driving: Kerala High Court

Justice G. Girish observed that Section 297 of IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act are totally distinct. The Court held that the reason for rash and negligent driving is irrelevant, rejecting the argument that prosecution under Section 279 IPC is unsustainable because drunken driving under Section 185 of MV is not established.

Court said, “Section 279 IPC are totally distinct from the essential requirements of Section 185 of the MV Act….The reason for such rash and negligent driving is immaterial as far as Section 279 IPC is concerned. The cause for rash and negligent driving by an offender can be drunkenness, sleeplessness, lack of concern about the safety of others, or even a feeling of egoistic thrill. But such cause never matters while deciding the question whether the offence under Section 279 IPC is attracted. Therefore, there is no basis for the argument that, since the rash and negligent driving in the present case was the outcome of drunkenness, and since the offence relating to drunken driving is not brought out in the case, there cannot be a successful prosecution for Section 279 IPC as well.”

Further, the Court stated that acquittal in Section 185 of the MV Act would not nullify the prosecution initiated under Section 297 of the IPC.

It said, “The question whether there was rash and negligent driving is irrelevant for deciding whether an offender is guilty of an offence under Section 185(a) of the MV Act. Therefore, there is absolutely no merger of the ingredients of Section 279 IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act to hold that a finding against one of the aforesaid Sections would nullify the prosecution initiated under the other Section.”

In the facts of the case, final report was filed against the Petitioner under Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) of the IPC and Section 185 (driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The breath analyser test result of the Petitioner showed that he was driving motor car with alcohol content amounting to 121 mg per 100 ml in his blood. It is to be noted that Prosecution can be initiated under Section 185 of the MV Act if detection of alcohol content in the blood exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml in breath analyser test.

Notably, if a person is arrested for drunken driving under Section 185, he has to be subjected to medical examination. The Court also observed that a blood test is not mandatory if there is no arrest. The Court stated that the proceedings against the Petitioner has to be set aside under Section 185 of the MV Act due to non-compliance of mandatory statutory requirements.

Court said, “..unfortunately, the law enforcing agencies, in many cases of drunken-driving, are not diligent enough to stick on to the procedural requirements for a successful prosecution.”

The Court further stated that it is immaterial to establish Section 185 of the MV Act for prosecution under Section 279 of the IPC. The Court stated that rash and negligent driving only pertains to the manner of driving and not the reason behind such driving.

As such, the Court held that prosecution against Petitioner under Section 279 of IPC cannot be set aside merely because there is non-compliance of the procedural requirements for initiating prosecution under Section 185 of the MV Act.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed in part.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate P Vijaya Bhanu, Advocates M.Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K.Sasi, P.M.Rafiq, Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, V.C.Sarath, Vipin Narayan, Pooja Pankaj

Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj.N.R

Case Title: Benny Mon v State of Kerala

Case No: CRL.MC NO. 3611 OF 2019

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 189