Bombay HC Quashes Drunk-Driving FIR Where BAC Exceeded Limit by 0.1 mg, Citing Device Tolerance and De Minimis Doctrine
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under the Motor Vehicles Act where a student's breath-alcohol reading exceeded the legal limit by just 0.1 mg, finding the margin absorbed by the analyser's own tolerance window and the prosecution fatally short of the ingredients for the other charges.
On 6 August 2026, Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, quashed FIR No. 740 of 2026 registered at Kandivali Police Station against Rohit Abhijit Oze, a 25-year-old postgraduate student. The FIR arose from a breath-alcohol test conducted in the early hours of 6 June 2026 that returned a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 30.1 mg per 100 ml — 0.1 mg above the statutory threshold under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court held that this marginal excess fell squarely within the manufacturer-specified operational tolerance of the device used, that the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex applied, and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the judicial process.
The FIR and the Charges Against the Student
At around 1:45 a.m. on 6 June 2026, police at Laljipada, New Link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai, intercepted a motor car bearing registration No. MH-47-BK-4275 driven by Rohit Oze. Officers administered a breath-alcohol intoxication test using an Alcovisor Jupiter X Breath Alcohol Analyser. The recorded BAC was 30.1 mg per 100 ml. The device reading formed the entire basis for FIR No. 740 of 2026.
The FIR charged Oze under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — which makes it an offence to drive with a BAC exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml — and additionally under Sections 281 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Oze was the sole accused.
He is a resident of Borivali West, Mumbai, holds no prior criminal antecedents, and had secured admission to a postgraduate programme at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands with a student visa. He was scheduled to board a flight to the Netherlands on 3 August 2026.
The Petition Before the High Court
Oze moved Writ Petition (ST) No. 13733 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR. Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserving the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.
His advocate, Mr. Aditya Sutrale, advanced two principal arguments. First, that the BAC reading of 30.1 mg per 100 ml was borderline and, given the technical margin of error inherent in the device, the prosecution could not establish with the certainty required for a criminal charge that the reading genuinely exceeded the 30 mg threshold. Second, that forcing a student with no criminal record to undergo a multi-year criminal trial over a difference of 0.1 mg would be an abuse of the process of law.
The State, through Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, maintained that the test showed a BAC in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml and that the FIR was therefore properly registered.
The Device Tolerance Calculation
A significant factual development at the hearing was the placing on record of the official catalogue of the Alcovisor Jupiter X Breath Alcohol Analyser by the petitioner's counsel. The catalogue was marked as Exhibit P-1. Its specifications listed the accuracy range for the relevant concentration bracket as ±5% for readings between 0 and 0.10% BrAC, and ±8% for readings between 0.10% and 0.15% BrAC.
The court called upon Mr. Sutrale to demonstrate the mathematical application of this tolerance to the recorded value. The resulting calculation, which the APP did not dispute, was reproduced in the judgment: applying the ±5% standard manufacturer tolerance to the recorded 30.01 mg per 100 ml, the adjusted true value is 28.59 mg per 100 ml — comfortably below the 30 mg statutory threshold.
The court's finding on this point was direct. The FIR hinged on a baseline reading of 30.1 mg against a statutory limit of 30 mg. That reading showed an extremely thin borderline variance. When the device's own operational tolerance margin was applied, the certainty required to sustain a criminal charge was, in the court's words, entirely consumed by the device's native tolerance window.
The court also noted that the prosecution's case rested solely on the analyser test. There was no allegation in the FIR that Oze's gait was unsteady, his speech incoherent, or his pupils dilated at the time of his apprehension. No blood test and no urine test were conducted. The court drew on the Supreme Court's observations in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 3 SCC 930, where the court had cautioned that, absent corroborating clinical indicators, a definitive finding of intoxication cannot rest on uncertain evidence alone.
Why the BNS Offences Could Not Stand
The charges under Sections 281 and 125 of the BNS 2023 presented a separate difficulty for the prosecution. Section 281 relates to rash driving or riding on a public way; Section 125 concerns acts endangering life or personal safety of others.
The court observed that, apart from the allegation of BAC exceeding the permissible limit under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the FIR contained no allegation that Oze was driving in a rash or negligent manner. When the court specifically queried the APP to point to material supporting the ingredients of Sections 281 and 125, the APP “in all fairness, submitted that the said Sections are charged in view of the Petitioner being found to exceed the BAC.” There was no independent factual basis for those charges.
The court concluded that the material on record did not indicate the ingredients necessary to attract Sections 281 and 125 of the BNS 2023.
The De Minimis Principle and Inherent Powers
The court invoked Section 33 of the BNS 2023, which incorporates the doctrine de minimis non curat lex — the law does not concern itself with trifles. The court held that compelling a student with a valid driver's licence and no criminal antecedents to face a multi-year criminal trial over a 0.1 mg mechanical reading would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
On the exercise of inherent powers, the court applied the framework set out by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, finding the case fell within the categories that warrant interference under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023: both to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice.
The judgment does not treat the 0.1 mg excess as a general licence to drink and drive just below the device's tolerance range. The court's reasoning is confined to a specific combination of facts: a sole reliance on one instrument, a reading at an extreme margin, a device-catalogued tolerance that mathematically eliminates the excess, and a complete absence of corroborating clinical or behavioural indicators of intoxication.
Order
The petition was allowed. FIR No. 740 of 2026, dated 6 June 2026, registered at Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai, was quashed and set aside in its entirety. The rule was made absolute. No order as to costs was passed. Writ Petition (ST) No. 13733 of 2026 was disposed of on 6 August 2026.