Shivdas Pillay (44), a Lonavala-based civil contractor, was arrested by the Trombay police early on December 14 last year for “driving (his car) under the influence of alcohol” and without a licence. The Trombay police released him on a bail bond of Rs 2,500 with direction to appear before the Kurla Special Metropolitan Magistrate at 8 am on the same day.

“I argued that it was an interlocutory order (order granted before the trial ends as opposed to a final order sealing the matter) and cannot be challenged in appeal. The court set aside the sentence of the accused and reduced the fine from Rs 2,500 to Rs 2000,” said Additional Public Prosecutor Geeta Vaivude.

In his criminal appeal filed in the court of Additional Sessions Judge S N Sardesai, Pillay argued that when he, along with many other accused, appeared before the Kurla special magistrate’s court, “without any questions being asked, without being disclosed the offence for which he was being prosecuted, the leading Special Metropolitan Magistrate pronounced the order”. Pillay’s licence was revoked for a month and he was sentenced to 10 days’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2,500.

According to the appeal, the accused was not even given the copy of the chargesheet “either by the police or the metropolitan magistrate”. The one-page chargesheet (a custom-made one with details of the accused and offence) “is silent” regarding the percentage of alcohol detected in the breath-analyser test, the appeal said.

Pillay argued that despite this crucial fact missing, the magistrate “assumed the percentage of alcohol in the blood of the appellant was beyond the prescribed limit and under the assumption convicted him” under Section 185 and Section 3 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

According to the Section 185, which speaks of driving under the influence of alcohol, the alcohol content in the blood should be at least 30 gm per 100 ml of blood.

The accused also alleged that his signature was taken on the chargesheet after he was sentenced. Pillay argued that in his application the magistrate convicted him “without recording his plea”, as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code. Even the court order (which was written behind the chargesheet in two lines) does not “record” that he was explained the substance of the offence and that his plea was recorded which is prescribed under Section 263 of CrPC, Pillay argued. Since these laws were violated, the entire trial was “vitiated”, argued Pillay.