Police Officer cannot seize driving license unless in uniform

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 31st March 2020

Mr. Suryaneel Das v State of West Bengal and others [Writ Petition No. 4360 of 2020; Calcutta High Court]

Facts:

            In the following case, Mr. Suryaneel Das, the petitioner had parked his vehicle that is his car and had been engaged in a telephonic conversation. Mr. Suryaneel Das, alleged that two middle aged men in civil clothes came up to him and questioned him to disconnect the call and step out from his vehicle. The reason stated was that he needed to step out for answering of queries of a third man. 

            Unaware of the identity of the people, the petitioner, Mr. Suryaneel Das did not oblige at first and requested the men to show their valid ID proofs. The petitioner, Mr. Suryaneel Das further alleged that no proof had been provided by the men and they had started intimidating and threatening the petitioner. The two men had seized the petitioner’s driving license without any issuance of any temporary authorization slip as permitted under Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The two men then claimed to be police officials were not in uniform as envisaged under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore they were not entitled to seize the driving license of the petitioner. 

Issue:

            Whether seizure of driving license by the police officer who is not in uniform is valid or not?

Judgment:

            The Calcutta High Court on the 4^th of March, 2020 held that seizure of driving license by the police officer who is not in uniform under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, under Section 206 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the act is stated to be illegal. The case was heard by a single bench judge comprising of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya who highlighted that a police officer is expected to be a protector of justice and has a higher obligation than a common citizen in protecting of the law following due process. 

            Under Section 130(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the driver of a motor vehicle in any public place shall on demand of a police officer in uniform, produce his license for examination subject to provisions thereof. Keeping in mind, the said provision the court observed that nothing in the present case disclosed that the police being in uniform when seized the driving license and there was no duty cast upon the petitioner to hand over the license. It was stated that the seizure of the license was palpably under coercion on part of the police officers which were involved and who were not even in uniform. 

Further, the court highlighted that as per Section 206(2) of the MV Act, 1988 which categorically specifies that only if the police officer concerned has reason to believe that the driver of the vehicle who has been charged in relation to any offence under the following Act, may abscond or avoid service of a summon may seize any license held by the driver and therein forward it to the court asking cognizance of the offence. In this case, even in the written instruction, nothing had been disclosed to show that the police officer had reason to believe whatsoever regarding the petitioner’s intention to abscond or otherwise avoid service of summons. 

            The court observed that in view of specific and limited scope of Section 177 of the MV act, 1988 regarding absence of any facility availability with the police authorities to accept fine in cash or card, the police does not have the power, under any circumstances, to seize the driving license or haul up the petitioner in any manner of such an offence. In the eyes of the court, the seizing of the driving license by the Sub-inspector of Police was illegal. The court held that the petitioner was under no duty to produce his driving license even for examination since the police officer was not in uniform. Thereby disposing off the petition by immediately returning the driving license to the petitioner.