Sumanaratne v. O.I.C., Police Station, Borella and Another – sllr 1991 volume 1 page 345

In SUMANARATNE v. O.I.C. POLICE STATION, BORELLA AND ANOTHER, the court addressed whether the prosecution had proved that the accused caused death by rash/negligent driving and whether there was sufficient evidence of alcohol consumption as required under the Motor Traffic Act. It was held that the statutory threshold for proving alcohol consumption—namely, the presence of at least 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood—was not met by the evidence, which merely indicated a “smell of liquor.” The conviction for driving after consuming alcohol was set aside, while the conviction for causing death by rash/negligent driving was upheld. The principle reaffirmed is that criminal liability under the Motor Traffic Act for “consumed alcohol” requires objective evidence, not subjective i