KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has held that consuming liquor in a private place without causing nuisance or annoyance to anybody will not attract any offence. The court made it clear that "mere smell of alcohol also cannot be construed to mean that the person was intoxicated or was under the influence of any liquor. A diminished ability to act with full mental and physical capabilities because of alcohol or drug consumption; drunkenness will come under the definition of intoxication as per Black's Law dictionary."
Justice Sophy Thomas issued the order while quashing a criminal case against BS Salim Kumar of Kollam, who is a village assistant. The case was booked under section 118 (a) ( Any person who is found in a public place, in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition or incapable of looking after himself...) of the Kerala Police Act. The allegation is that on February 26, 2013, when the petitioner was called to the Badiadka police station for the purpose of identifying an accused, he was under the influence of alcohol. The police registered a case against him.
The petitioner argued that since that accused was a stranger to him, he could not identify him, and only because of that fact, police booked him.
The court observed that in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 118 (a) of the KP Act, a person should be found in a public place in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition incapable of looking after himself. The only allegation in the FIR was that he was intoxicated and was unable to control himself. There was no allegation that the petitioner committed rioting or misbehaved himself in the police station. The only allegation in the FIR was that he was intoxicated and was unable to control himself.
All the witnesses are police officers except one Saseendran, who was the accused arrested under the Sand Act, to identify whom the petitioner was called to the Police Station.
The expression 'rioting condition' used in Section 118 (a) would mean that the person was behaving in a way that is violent and or not in control. "Even if it is taken for argument sake that the petitioner had consumed alcohol, the available facts and materials are not sufficient to suggest that, he was not able to control himself or he committed rioting inside the police station causing a nuisance. He reached the police station, only because he was asked to be present there. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner is having any criminal antecedents," observed the court.