[V.Narayan]

In 2005-2006 I had a US based employee named JS; then about 48 years of age; a white American. JS hit another car while driving under influence of alcohol. This in the US. The young Hispanic lady in the other car got killed. JS went into the cooler for 7 years. And this guy was a VP by title. And the case was closed in a matter of weeks. His wife divorced him soon after his conviction. Boom. Needless to say he also lost his job. Only silver lining is he got out a little earlier due to good behavior etc and did find another job.

We take our DUI too lightly. Lock them up. Use the rattan cane too.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I had a US based employee named JS

I recall that in the USA if you are caught DUI, in case of pilots, your pilot license is revoked automatically and immediately as well. Not quite sure if and how you would get that re-instated. Valid for all pilot licenses.

KLM recently fired one of its pilots who was (still) slightly over the limit from having a few drink the night before. The guy appealed on the grounds it was his first time, only marginally over the limit etc. the usual sob story.

Dutch employment laws are very much favoring the employer and it is not easy to fire anybody just like that. In this case, the court ruled in favor of KLM. When it comes to piloting there is simply no middle ground and or tolerance at all.

I do not think he lost his license, but the likelihood of him finding new employment with a reputable carrier are remote at best I would think.

[anjan_c2007]

Quite encouraging to know about the proactive Hyderabad cops. The action taken is perfectly in order and must nail employees. But what about the self employed who have no office boss and so on ?

Drunken driving under Section 185 of the M.V. Act has penal clauses for the first offence. For the second and subsequent offences the punishment is harsher, so as not to encourage drunk drivers.

185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. – Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle -
5[(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. Per 100 ml. of
blood detected in a test by a breath analyser,
or ]
(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle. shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine which
may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation – For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.
Corresponding Law. - Section 185 corresponds to section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Objects and Reasons. – Clause 185 provides for punishment or driving under the influence of drink or drug.

Read with :-

20. Power of Court to disqualify. - (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act or of an offence in the commission of which a motor vehicle
was used, the Court by which such person is convicted may, subject to the provisions of this Act, in addition to imposing any other punishment authorised by law, declare
the persons so convicted to be disqualified, for such period as the Court may specify, from holding any driving licence to drive all classes or description of vehicles, or any
particular class or description of such vehicles, as are specified in such licence :
Provided that in respect of an offence punishable under section 183 no such order shall be made for the first or second offence.
(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 132, section 134 or section 185, the Court convicting any person
of any such offence shall order the disqualification under sub section (I) and if the offence is relatable to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 132 or section 134, such
disqualification shall be for a period of not less than one month, and if the offence is relatable to section 185, such disqualification shall be for a period of not less than six months.
(3) A Court shall, unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing it thinks fit to order otherwise, order the disqualification of a person –
(a) who having been convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 is again convicted of an offence punishable under that section,
(b) who is convicted of an offence punishable under section 189, or
(c) who is convicted of an offence punishable under section 192 :
Provided that the period of disqualification shall not exceed, in the case referred to in clause (a), five years, or, in the case referred to in clause (b), two years or, in the case referred to in clause (c), one year.
(4) A Court ordering the disqualification of a person convicted of an offence punishable under section 184 may direct that such person shall, whether he has
previously passed the test of competence to drive as referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9 or not, remain disqualified until he has subsequent to the making of the order
of disqualification passed that test to the satisfaction of the licensing authority.
(5) The Court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from any conviction of an offence of the nature specified in sub-section (1) may set aside or vary any order of disqualification made under that sub-section notwithstanding that no appeal would lie against the conviction as a result of which such order of disqualification was made.

Usually the Section 185 is read with Section 20 in such cases of traffic offences and the respective traffic police upon conviction of the drunk driver by a competent court , sends his details to the respective RTO office from where his/her driving licence was issued, who have the power to suspend or cancel the driving licences of the convicted, deliquent drunk driver.

It is however surprising to know that there is no device with many traffic police authorities to check as to whether the offence committed is the first or second or third .... offence by the drunk driver. Thus if a driver is caught for such an offence the second time, the traffic police registers it as the first offence again. This is the case in most places in Maharashtra. Quite surprising to know, that is ! If a drunk driver is caught in Ratnagiri driving a car and fined, convicted and he is again caught in Nagpur for the second time, the Nagpur traffic police may treat it only as a first offence. Nagpur traffic police is however beefing up its database after court orders.

There is no software of any kind on an "All India Level" to check grave traffic offences (incl drunk driving) and label them as the first, second or third offence and so on. This is the position after 80 years of having motor vehicle acts (Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and now Motor Vehicle Act, 1988). The fault not of law makers but of enforcers and enforcement of traffic laws by the competent agencies.

I have filed an intervention petition in a traffic related PIL at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, praying for directions to be issued to the Union govt and Maharashtra government to have a proper data base, to nail drunk driving and other such grave traffic offences and find out instantly as to whether these are the first, second or third or.... offence by the driver in question. The Union Transport Secretary and the State Transport Secretary/ Commissioner are respondents. A few hearings are over and I must say the results are encouraging. The respondents will have to comply sooner or later.

[sunishsamuel]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Only the danda works in our country.
There is a world of a difference between default on debt and being a risk to life and limb.

The danda works everywhere isnt it ? In US or Australia i do not think people generally go against the law. So it will have to work here too.

For those who talk about privacy, future etc. i have a different view point. If you see how the people misbehave with police (i have seen that in close quarters at Hyd) after a couple of pegs, i feel punishment levels are not at all harsh. And kudos to the officers who still manage to keep their calm and follow the process. Some people even vomit in the police jeep/innova after getting arrested, now think about all these and i feel people should know that there is a law that prohibits people from driving under influence and they have to follow it.

Also, i do not think business will get affected because of police checking. All they ask is to not drink and drive. Either you buy the spirits and drink at home (these days we have nice shops which resemble an international super market only selling liquor - so no more waiting in front of the local wine shops) or drink and take a uber/ola back home.

And the police officers at hyd are gentlemanly - at least i feel that. Complaints were addressed satisfactorily without any "intervention" We have to appreciate their service to the state and the citizens. I have been through their checks multiple times and they greet you properly, makes sure they don't trouble unnecessarily (even if you are driving out of state vehicle) or insist on speaking local language.

P.S:- I am not a saint, i have been a sinner but realized and will never drink and drive. I have seen a good friend getting involved in a ghastly accident after couple of pegs and still struggling to sort the case out. And by no mean i endorse or encourage drinking. Please be responsible !

[cp171185]

Though I support the intention of the police wholeheartedly. But at the same time it is fit case to counter attack the police legally. Simply just throw a legal notice, how dare they enter someone's private space! First Remove those bull bars from all of your police vehicles, it is illegal too!!

[sachinpk]

Originally Posted by binand

The MV Act is not the only one that gives police officers their powers. There is the IPC, the Cr PC and each state has its own Police Act that appoints officers above a certain rank (DCP sounds right) as judicial officers (district magistrate equivalent) with responsibility for maintaining public order - they can issue orders and directions to the general public and specific individuals in this capacity.

I do understand that sir . I did read the letter from the Dy.CP. Generally any formal notice/letter coming from the police department would also list the legal provisions (Act & Section) by which the letter was sent out. This is for even a simple matter as asking for appearance in a police station (Sec 160 Cr.PC). Yes in certain states police commissioners (and thus also Dy.CPs and ACPs) do get "executive magistrate" powers; but even executive magistrates do not have powers "try" any person for any offence. That powers are vested with "judicial magistrates" only.

I am willing to be corrected here. But for the accused drunken driver the law of the land has already dealt with him. The police arrested him for drunken driving, filed a charge sheet, produced him before the magistrate who also sentenced him for 4 days S.I. The story should end with that. Now it is upto the employer to figure out why the employee was absent for four days, seek an explanation from him and then decide what to do next. The "true law" (i.e Sec 185 MV Act) is actually beautiful for the simple fact that it is neutral and impartial. Where as the subsequent police action is not. It is unfair to people who are employed by some one else (and that too only in bigger companies). The police may have reasons to do that; and like people who justify thrashings in the lockup - no body will tell the truth, unless they get a few whackings - would be able to justify this action as well.

Originally Posted by hserus

IPC 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way

This section also does not talk about mandatory information to be passed onto the guilty person's employer. Court records are public records, but it is open for the person who looks for it. Cyberabad police on the other hand is sending out the information suo moto, without even checking if the company was interested in this in the first place.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I recall that in the USA if you are caught DUI, in case of pilots, your pilot license is revoked automatically and immediately as well. Not quite sure if and how you would get that re-instated. Valid for all pilot licenses.

In India the aviation rules is that if a pilot is found under the influence of some drug/alcohol before or after flying the CPL gets suspended, and he is also "grounded" (cannot fly). The offence is treated strictly if the pilot is caught during a "post flight" check (which means he actually flew a plane "under influence"). But don't think DUI on road is linked up with the CPL in any way.

Originally Posted by sunishsamuel

Some people even vomit in the police jeep/innova after getting arrested, now think about all these and i feel people should know that there is a law that prohibits people from driving under influence and they have to follow it.

I am generally a pro-police person (often to a fault). But when the police cook up new schemes which does not have a legal backing, it would only hit back at them. This "love letter" stuff unfairly targets a group of people (IT/ITES employees) where as the DUI related laws in India are uniform and neutral to every group of offenders. Perhaps an RTI application to Cyberabad Traffic Police asking for the legal sections, standing orders, or DG Orders on sending this "love letter" should be the first step.

Originally Posted by anjan_c2007

I have filed an intervention petition in a traffic related PIL at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, praying for directions to be issued to the Union govt and Maharashtra government to have a proper data base

Your thoughts are being heard. "Sarathi" is your man here. GoI is going in full speed to make a centralised database of driving licenses. Every state would have to move into this computerised system. Numerous advantages are there. Having a centralised repository of licenses will avoid people having duplicate licenses (linking with Aadhaar helps here), and this can also be a way to track MV offences of a license holder. And there is also a mandate to make all driving licenses in India to have a uniform format (and quality). Example, Kerala Govt. issued "card" licenses are pathetic, they are just laminated sheet of paper. Karnataka Govt issued "cards" have always been credit card types which are durable.

[ariesonu]

Pretty surprised that most Bhpians went on defensive, therein indirectly agreeing that DRUNK DRIVING is OK. Probably they have not lost any dear one to a drunk driver, even if a pet.

On lighter note, No employment means no money to buy alcohol, no money to buy fuel for car = no drunk driving.

Regards-Sonu

[sachinpk]

Originally Posted by ariesonu

Pretty surprised that most Bhpians went on defensive, therein indirectly agreeing that DRUNK DRIVING is OK. Probably they have not lost any dear one to a drunk driver, even if a pet.

I don't think any one has supported drunk driving, but some people (including me) have a different view on a illegal/dubious step taken by Cyberabad Traffic Police. Drunken driving is punishable and the quantum of punishment and the legal remedies are all pretty much well defined. The police cannot take steps which are not prescribed in the law books. All said and done the police's job is to detect crimes/offences, gather evidences and present a charge sheet in court (and these are all actually to be done in an impersonal way). Weighing the evidence and then giving a punishment based on the laws formulated by the parliament is the job of the judicial officers.

On lighter note, No employment means no money to buy alcohol, no money to buy fuel for car = no drunk driving.

If drinking alcohol is a "no employement" offence, better is to stop manufacturing alcohol, right? .

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

I

If drinking alcohol is a "no employement" offence, better is to stop manufacturing alcohol, right? .

Off Topic Warning: Millions of women especially in the bottom 50% of our socio-economic ladder would be very happy if alcohol could some how be banned. They see their husbands blow up the family income on country liquor each month to the detriment of the kids and family.

For a teetotaler like me it is mystifying why a person should need to drink and drive.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

For a teetotaler like me it is mystifying why a person should need to drink and drive.

Trust me even for normal non teetoalers, its mystifying why a person should need to drink and drive. Harsh punishments are the norm the world over, and rightly so for such behavior

[avdhesh15]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

For a teetotaler like me it is mystifying why a person should need to drink and drive.

It is mystifying for everyone! Especially in this age of driver apps and radio cabs.

I'm a hard-core non teetotaler, but have driven to parties and hired drivers (or asked the Mrs to drive), left the car at the venue and taken radio cabs, and simply just taken radio cabs both ways!

Only morons / idiots / (unmentionable language) want to drink and drive. And they should be punished in the sternest way.

[binand]

Originally Posted by sachinpk

The police cannot take steps which are not prescribed in the law books.

As I mentioned in the previous post, what the DCP did is quite OK as per the law books. I looked up the relevant law; it is called the Hyderabad City Police Act. Its text can be downloaded here:

https://www.hyderabadpolice.gov.in/a...yPoliceAct.pdf

It clearly gives the Hyderabad Police Commissioner (and all ACPs and DCPs) the power to give directions to the general public for the preservation of order (section 22(d)), which is basically what the letter is doing ("...urge your employees to follow traffic rules..."). As for para 1, it states some facts that are part of public record to provide context to the rest of the letter.

We can argue, and agree to disagree, on privacy or other basis whether the DCP is justified in doing this. But legally they seems to be on very sound footing. As for me, I don't care if a few careers are destroyed (you sow, you also get to reap) if that results in some DUIs off the roads.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ariesonu

...therein indirectly agreeing that DRUNK DRIVING is OK.

Seriously?! I can't find a single post here where anyone supports drinking and driving.

There are opinions on whether a letter to the employer is necessary or not, that's about it. No one has said anything about drunk driving being ok and a lot of us who do not think this sort of letter is actually necessary have clearly stated that we support stringent action against drunk driving because it is wrong and also because we knew someone would reach this wrong conclusion. Has anyone suggested that there not be jail time and a fine as prescribed by the law? Has anyone said the cops should not be checking for drunk driving? Making a valid point to support one's argument is one thing. Drawing an invalid inference and changing the basic argument itself to do that is something else altogether.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by ariesonu

Pretty surprised that most Bhpians went on defensive, therein indirectly agreeing that DRUNK DRIVING is OK. Probably they have not lost any dear one to a drunk driver, even if a pet.

It's pretty clear that nobody on T-BHP supports or will condone DUI. The debate is on the quantum of punishment and methods of deterrence.

On lighter note, No employment means no money to buy alcohol, no money to buy fuel for car = no drunk driving.

There's another way to look at this.

Having been in a people focussed Industry (IT) for decades I can tell you that the best way to make a person conform is to pinch the wallet. Even the most disobedient person/employee falls in line when they learn their salary will be cut if they do not fill in timesheets, swipe in or out of office, submit leave applications among other 'hygiene' practices all of which are minor compared to the grave offense that is DUI.

Yeah, so if those who drink and drive need to be brought to their senses by holding out the threat of a potential loss of employment AND their professional and societal image so be it. V.Narayan's delightful suggestion of using a rattan cane, an implement that I was on the receiving end of quite frequently in school due to my mischievous nature, should also be effective.

Net-net - when I am out on the road with friends and family, either in a car or even walking on the sidewalk, seeing a drunk driver rings alarm bells in my mind because that driver represents a threat to public safety. He/she needs to be taken off the road pronto and awarded the appropriate punishment by the law.

[Vysakh]

DUI is not a mistake. It is a voluntary crime. If one is educated enough or has taken the DL the right way he would know that DUI is a criminal offense. Also you see a million "Don't drink and drive" sign boards or posters or ads or other PSAs every single day. Despite all this if someone drinks and drives and puts the lives of others in danger, he/she doesn't deserve a second chance. If shaming is what it takes for such people to never repeat it, so be it.
I don't understand why people are brining privacy concerns into this. As long as you don't drink and drive, it shouldn't bother/affect you. Unless...