High court: Drinking Alcohol is not a Crime...! Hot News!!
The high court has ruled that drinking alcohol in private places is not a crime. The court ruled that it was not a crime to drink alcohol without disturbing another person.
Justice Sophie Thomas's ruling makes it clear that if a person smells alcohol, it does not mean he or she is intoxicated. The court quashed the FIR and acquitted the accused in a case registered by the Badiaduka police.
The petition was filed by Salim Kumar, a resident of Badiaduka, seeking cancellation of the FIR.
The complainant told the court that the case was registered under section 118 (a) of the police Act, showing that he was also a village assistant when he was called by the police to identify the accused in another case.
The complainant also argued that there was no reason to file a case against him under the prescribed section. The court considered the plaintiff's argument.
He pointed out that there was no evidence that he was under the influence of intoxicants. The court observed that there was no evidence that he had misbehaved at the police station or caused any other problems, even though he was considered drunk.
Another important point is that the complainant reached the station at that time as per the request of the police. Therefore, the court ruled that the prosecution's allegation that he was out of control and under the influence of alcohol would not stand.
Justice Sophie Thomas's ruling makes it clear that if a person smells alcohol, it does not mean he or she is intoxicated. The court quashed the FIR and acquitted the accused in a case registered by the Badiaduka police.
The petition was filed by Salim Kumar, a resident of Badiaduka, seeking cancellation of the FIR.
The complainant told the court that the case was registered under section 118 (a) of the police Act, showing that he was also a village assistant when he was called by the police to identify the accused in another case.
The complainant also argued that there was no reason to file a case against him under the prescribed section. The court considered the plaintiff's argument.
He pointed out that there was no evidence that he was under the influence of intoxicants. The court observed that there was no evidence that he had misbehaved at the police station or caused any other problems, even though he was considered drunk.
Another important point is that the complainant reached the station at that time as per the request of the police. Therefore, the court ruled that the prosecution's allegation that he was out of control and under the influence of alcohol would not stand.