What is drunkenness? Kerala HC explains referring to Black’s Law dictionary

By Express News Service

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has held that consuming liquor in a personal place with out inflicting nuisance or annoyance to anyone is not going to entice any offence. The court docket 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 whereas quashing a legal case towards BS Salim Kumar of Kollam, who’s a village assistant. The case was booked below part 118 (a) ( Any one who is present in a public place, in an intoxicated method or rioting situation or incapable of taking care of himself…) of the Kerala Police Act. The allegation is that on February 26, 2013, when the petitioner was referred to as to the Badiadka police station for the aim of figuring out an accused, he was drunk. The police registered a case towards him.

The petitioner argued that since that accused was a stranger to him, he couldn’t establish him, and solely due to that reality, police booked him.

The court docket noticed that with a purpose to entice an offence punishable below Section 118 (a) of the KP Act, an individual ought to be present in a public place in an intoxicated method or rioting situation incapable of taking care of himself. The solely allegation within the FIR was that he was intoxicated and was unable to regulate himself. There was no allegation that the petitioner dedicated rioting or misbehaved himself within the police station. The solely allegation within the FIR was that he was intoxicated and was unable to regulate himself.

All the witnesses are law enforcement officials besides one Saseendran, who was the accused arrested below the Sand Act, to establish whom the petitioner was referred to as to the Police Station.

The expression ‘rioting situation’ utilized in Section 118 (a) would imply that the individual was behaving in a method that’s violent and or not in management. “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,” noticed the court docket.