Breathalyzer Outputs as Electronic Records: Patna High Court Mandates Section 65B Certification and Clinical Corroboration; Informant Cannot Investigate

Introduction

This commentary examines the Patna High Court’s oral judgment in Manoj Murmu @ Manoj Murmur v. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 848 of 2023, decided on 19 August 2025), which set aside a conviction under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 read with Rule 18(4) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. The case arose from an Excise Non-FIR No. 370 of 2022 (Katihar), where the appellant was allegedly found drunk based solely on a breath analyzer test conducted by the very officer who also acted as the informant and the investigating officer (IO).

The appeal foregrounded three core questions: (i) whether the breathalyzer result alone, without blood/urine testing, could conclusively prove “consumption” for the offence under Section 37; (ii) whether the breathalyzer printout is an “electronic record” requiring mandatory certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and (iii) whether an investigation conducted by the informant himself vitiates the prosecution for want of a fair and impartial investigation. The judgment is “AFR” (Approved for Reporting), signalling its precedential value.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and one-year sentence. It held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for multiple reasons:

• The place of occurrence (PO) — the genesis of the case — was not identified or proved through evidence.
• There were material contradictions between PW-1 (informant-cum-IO) and PW-2 (police official) regarding the presence of 8–10 other persons at the alleged scene and the manner of testing.
• The breathalyzer test was not conducted at the PO, the device was not uniquely identified or shown to be calibrated, and the operator (PW-1) had no specialized training.
• In the absence of blood or urine testing, a mere breath test was not a conclusive indicator of “consumption.”
• The breathalyzer printout, being an electronic record, required strict compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act; the certificate was inadequate because it came from a person without training and thus not occupying the requisite “responsible official position” in relation to the device or the relevant activities.
• The investigation was vitiated because the informant and the investigating officer were the same person, undermining the fairness of the inquiry.

Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was discharged from bail bond liabilities.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 3 SCC 930: The Court relied on this to reiterate that conclusions about alcohol consumption cannot rest on superficial indicators (smell, gait, speech) and must be corroborated by scientific testing like blood or urine analysis. In the present case, this principle is extended in a prohibition context to emphasize that a breathalyzer, without more, is not conclusive of “consumption.”
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1: The Supreme Court’s authoritative statement that Section 65B(4) certification is a condition precedent for admissibility of electronic records was central. The Patna High Court applied this to breathalyzer outputs, treating them as “electronic records” requiring a proper certificate by a “responsible official” with knowledge of the device and the relevant activity. An untrained ASI cannot validly certify the device’s output.
• Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709; Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; State by Inspector of Police, NIB v. Rajangam: These decisions condemn the practice of the complainant/informant acting as the investigating officer, as it undermines the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. The Patna High Court followed this line.
• Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627: A Constitutionally anchored exposition that fair investigation under Article 21 mandates a separation between informant and investigator. The Court applied this principle beyond NDPS prosecutions to excise/prohibition offences, underscoring uniform due process.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds along three interlocking axes: evidentiary defects, electronic evidence compliance, and structural fairness of investigation.

• Evidentiary gaps and contradictions: The prosecution failed to prove the PO — a foundational element of criminal fact-finding. PW-1 admitted not delineating the boundary of the scene; PW-2 spoke of 8–10 bystanders uncorroborated by PW-1. The breath test was not administered at the PO, and there was no explanation for not testing the others present or making them witnesses. These gaps eroded the plausibility and completeness of the prosecution narrative.
• Breathalyzer: non-conclusiveness and operator competence: The Court underscored that a breath analyzer reading, in the absence of confirmatory blood/urine testing, is not conclusive proof of consumption (reinforced by Bachubhai). Compounding this, PW-1 lacked specialized training to administer or certify the test, and the device was neither uniquely identified nor shown calibrated. This twin deficit affected both reliability (weight) and admissibility (lawfulness) of the breath evidence.
• Section 65B Evidence Act compliance: Treating the breath analyzer output as an “electronic record,” the Court applied Arjun Panditrao to require strict certification under Section 65B(4). A valid certificate must:
  • Identify the record and the manner of its production;
  • Provide particulars of the device showing the record was produced by a computer;
  • Be signed by a person in a responsible official position in relation to either the device’s operation or the relevant activity’s management, to the best of their knowledge or belief.
  Here, the certifier was untrained and hence not competent for such certification. Without proper 65B compliance, the breathalyzer printout could not be admitted or relied upon as proof of its contents.
• Fair investigation and role conflict: Following Megha Singh, Bhagwan Singh, and Mohan Lal, the Court ruled that the informant and IO must not be the same. This conflict risks bias and violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair investigation, especially in laws that can entail summary procedures or reverse burdens. This defect alone can vitiate proceedings.
• Burden of proof: As the prosecution is duty-bound to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the aggregate defects — unproven PO, contradictory testimony, inadmissible/unsafe breath evidence, lack of clinical corroboration, and tainted investigation — compelled acquittal.

Impact and Prospective Significance

This judgment has notable ramifications for prohibition law enforcement, evidentiary practice, and investigative standards:

• Prohibition prosecutions under Section 37: The decision raises the evidentiary threshold for “consumption” cases. Breathalyzer readings, without proper 65B certification and corroborative medical testing (blood/urine), will likely be insufficient to sustain conviction. Investigating agencies should anticipate the necessity of clinical tests where feasible.
• Electronic evidence rigor in field devices: Breath analyzers, bodycams, speed guns, EVM logs, and other digital devices all produce electronic records. Arjun Panditrao’s regime applies uniformly: ensure device identification, calibration logs, chain-of-custody, and Section 65B certification by a properly placed and trained official. Oral assertions cannot substitute statutory certification.
• Separation of roles in investigation: Police and excise departments must operationalize a structural separation between the informant and the IO. Assigning a different, independent IO at inception is now not merely best practice but a constitutional necessity for fair investigation.
• Trial management: Trial courts should frontload admissibility rulings for electronic outputs (Section 65B) and insist upon clarity about the PO and independent witnesses. Where electronic records are primary, courts may proactively direct the prosecution to cure certification gaps.
• Policy and training: Departments may need SOPs for:
  • Operator training and certification for breath analyzer use;
  • Regular device calibration and documentation;
  • Standardized chain-of-custody and identification marks on devices and printouts;
  • Timely clinical testing protocols post-detection;
  • Ensuring independent witnesses and body-worn camera documentation at the PO.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 65B (Electronic Evidence): If you print or retrieve data from a digital device (like a breath analyzer), that output is an “electronic record.” To use it in court without producing the original device, the law requires a special certificate (Section 65B(4)) by a responsible person with knowledge of the device or the activity. Without it, the printout is usually inadmissible.
• Breathalyzer vs. Clinical Tests: A breathalyzer indicates alcohol presence in breath; clinical tests (blood/urine) confirm alcohol in the body with scientific specificity. Courts treat breath readings as indicative but prefer clinical corroboration to conclusively prove “consumption,” especially when the breath reading’s reliability or handling is in doubt.
• Informant-cum-IO Problem: When the same officer reports the offence (complainant/informant) and also investigates it (IO), fairness is compromised. This role conflict can bias the investigation and is disapproved by the Supreme Court; a different officer should investigate.
• Place of Occurrence (PO): The specific location where the alleged offence occurred. Proving and describing the PO is essential to establish what happened, allow independent corroboration, and test the credibility of the prosecution story.
• “Simple Imprisonment” and “Set-Off”: Simple imprisonment is custodial punishment without hard labour. Set-off means time spent in custody during trial is counted towards the sentence.
• AFR (Approved for Reporting): Indicates the court deems the judgment to have precedential value and suitable for law reporting, thereby guiding future cases.

Practical Compliance Checklist for Investigators and Prosecutors

• Assign an independent IO; the informant should not investigate.
• Identify and secure the PO with clear boundaries, photographs, and site plans.
• Use independent witnesses; document presence of bystanders and reasons if not examined.
• Administer breath tests at the PO where feasible; record time, circumstances, and device ID.
• Maintain calibration records; uniquely mark the device used; preserve printouts with timestamps and identifiers.
• Obtain Section 65B(4) certificate from a responsible official trained and positioned to certify the device and process.
• Where available and proportionate, obtain confirmatory clinical tests (blood/urine) swiftly to corroborate breath results.
• Ensure the operator is trained; annex training certifications if relevant.
• Maintain chain-of-custody for all electronic outputs and medical samples.
• Anticipate and pre-empt credibility issues by full, consistent witness statements.

Conclusion

Manoj Murmu v. State of Bihar crystallizes three interrelated rules for prohibition prosecutions and electronic evidence:

• Breathalyzer outputs are electronic records; without strict Section 65B certification by a competent responsible official, they are inadmissible or carry negligible probative value.
• Breathalyzer readings alone are not conclusive proof of “consumption” under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; clinical corroboration (blood/urine) significantly strengthens the prosecution, and may be decisive where breath evidence is otherwise infirm.
• An informant cannot investigate his own case; a fair investigation under Article 21 requires separation of roles to eliminate bias and the appearance of bias.

By setting aside the conviction on these grounds, the Patna High Court not only vindicated the appellant’s right to a fair investigation and trial but also laid down a robust, process-driven roadmap for future enforcement. The judgment harmonizes constitutional due process, evidentiary discipline for electronic records, and practical policing in prohibition contexts — its influence will likely extend beyond excise law to any prosecution resting on field-generated digital evidence.