Drinking is illegal in Gujarat, but so is forced blood test

Drinking is illegal in Gujarat, but so is forced blood test
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

AHMEDABAD, JAN 25: To drink liquor in Gujarat is against the law. But so is forcing a person who has had more than a few drinks to undergo a blood test, according to S.S. Brahmbhatt, joint judicial magistrate (first class), Gandhinagar.

The ruling came in a case against Somabhai P. Maliwad, who was taken to Gandhinagar Civil Hospital on August 3, 1990 as the police suspected he had consumed liquor. The blood test proved that Maliwad had indeed been drinking and a criminal case was subsequently filed against him.

But during the trial, Maliwad told the judge that the blood test was performed against his wish and that a doctor at the hospital had drawn 5 cc blood though he had resisted.

The judge has observed in his order that injecting a hypodermic needle into a person's body against his or her wish amounted to causing hurt as defined in Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Brahmbhatt also criticised the practice of drawing blood for a test on the ground that it could give the person HIV or Hepatitis B infection ``because cleanliness is often not maintained in civil hospitals. And there is a possibility that such diseases might spread''.

He further said that like in western countries, many Indian institutes also have equipment to determine whether a person is drunk without subjecting him or her to a blood test. The government was capable of buying such equipment,and so it was proper to do away with this old method, the judge observed.

Brahmbhatt ruled that drawing blood against the person's consent was also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right to life. Besides, drawing blood against the wish of the accused also amounted to forcing him to give evidence against himself, the judge noted. With these observations, the judge found Maliwad innocent and ordered his acquittal. The judge also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to cross examine all the witnesses though it had been given six-and-a-half years for this.