Drunken Driving As A Criminal Offence
Legal Provisions Governing Drunken Driving
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA)
Section 185: Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is an offence.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 6 months and/or fine up to ₹10,000.
Section 184: Dangerous driving includes driving under intoxication.
Section 188: Disobedience to orders by a public servant (e.g., refusing breathalyzer test).
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 279: Rash or negligent driving.
Section 304A: Causing death by rash or negligent driving (includes driving under influence).
Why is Drunken Driving a Criminal Offence?
Driving under the influence impairs judgment, reflexes, and control, increasing risk of accidents.
It endangers life and property of the driver and the public.
It is treated as a cognizable offence due to the high risk and public safety concerns.
Important Case Laws on Drunken Driving as a Criminal Offence
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts: The accused was charged with rash and negligent driving under influence causing death.
Legal Principle: The Supreme Court held that drunken driving is a dangerous act and amounts to criminal negligence.
Significance: Established strict liability for drunk driving leading to accidents.
2. Kanta Shashi Rai v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 370
Facts: The Court dealt with the standard of proof in drunken driving cases.
Legal Principle: Confirmed that positive proof of intoxication by medical evidence or breathalyzer test is essential.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of scientific evidence in proving drunken driving.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1969) AIR 128
Facts: The accused was driving under influence and caused injury.
Legal Principle: The court observed that driving under intoxication is reckless and dangerous, punishable under IPC and MVA.
Significance: Early judicial recognition of drunken driving as a criminal offence.
4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966) AIR 1757
Facts: The case dealt with liability arising from drunken driving accidents.
Legal Principle: Held that the owner of the vehicle can also be held liable for permitting intoxicated driving.
Significance: Extended liability beyond driver to vehicle owner.
5. Suresh v. State of Haryana (1991 AIR SC 1905)
Facts: The accused was driving while intoxicated and caused death.
Legal Principle: Supreme Court confirmed that drunken driving leading to death attracts Section 304A IPC.
Significance: Clarified the interplay between MVA and IPC in drunken driving cases.
6. State of Gujarat v. Bharat Patel (1993) Cri LJ 2023
Facts: Accused challenged conviction for drunken driving causing death.
Legal Principle: Court held that drunken driving is inherently reckless and the accused cannot escape liability.
Significance: Reinforced strict approach to drunk driving offences.
7. Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961 AIR SC 624)
Facts: The Court considered whether drunkenness is a defence in rash driving.
Legal Principle: Held that drunkenness is not a defence; it aggravates the offence.
Significance: Clarified that being drunk does not excuse rash or negligent driving.
Summary Table of Judicial Principles on Drunken Driving
| Case | Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Gurmit Singh (1996) | Drunken driving = criminal negligence | Strict liability for drunk driving |
| Kanta Shashi Rai (2002) | Proof of intoxication via scientific evidence | Importance of breathalyzer/medical test |
| Mardikar (1969) | Driving under influence is reckless and punishable | Early recognition of offence |
| Subhagwanti (1966) | Owner liability for permitting drunk driving | Extended liability |
| Suresh (1991) | Drunken driving causing death attracts Section 304A IPC | Interplay of MVA and IPC |
| Bharat Patel (1993) | Drunken driving is inherently reckless | No escape from liability |
| Gopal Godse (1961) | Drunkenness is no defence in rash driving cases | Aggravates offence |
Practical Aspects
Testing: Police use breath analyzers and medical tests to establish intoxication.
Penalty: Includes imprisonment, fine, and license suspension.
Enhanced Liability: If death or injury occurs, harsher penalties under IPC apply.
Strict Enforcement: Courts emphasize deterrence due to public safety risk.
RELATED Blog
0 comments