“This Is Not A Police State”: Calcutta High Court Holds Seizure U/S. 206 MV Act Must Be Based On Statutory Grounds

A Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed, “This is not a police State; it is a welfare State governed by the rule of law. It must be clearly stated that, in a democratic society, even a person accused of a petty offence is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. No citizen should be subjected to rude or arrogant conduct by any staff or officer of any department. The justification that such behaviour is necessary for maintaining law and order cannot be accepted.”

It added, “The expression used in Section 206 is ‘seize’, not ‘impound’. The said expression has not been defined in the Act and as such the Court must look to the contextual interpretation of the said term. Seizure of a driving licence can only be done upon satisfaction of the contingencies set out in the section and the statute has made it mandatory for the officer to issue an acknowledgment to the person whose licence has been seized.”

The Petitioner appeared in person, while Advocate Wasim Ahmed represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner is a practising advocate. It was alleged that while driving his vehicle, he was stopped by a police officer and accused of speeding. The Petitioner submitted that he identified himself, denied any wrongdoing, and offered to pay any fine using a QR code or online mode. However, the officer refused to accept digital payment, seized his driving licence without providing any acknowledgment, and insisted that the petitioner sign a pre-filled compound slip.

The Petitioner further alleged that the officer used a sarcastic tone and refused to state any lawful basis for seizure. A fellow advocate also filed an affidavit describing a similar incident on the same day, where he was allegedly forced to pay in cash and was not given an opportunity to contest the charge in Court. In both instances, the allegation was that the compound slip had already been filled in and the driver was merely asked to sign it.

The Respondent officer stated in his affidavit that the vehicle was found to be speeding, recorded at 77 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. He claimed the licence was seized under Section 206(4) read with Section 183 of the Act and that the offence was compounded following return of the licence. The State also submitted that the matter was closed and undertook to ensure future compliance.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court observed, “A police officer in uniform can seize a driving licence only upon fulfilment of any of the conditions enumerated in Section 206 of the 1988 Act and the officer is bound to issue acknowledgment.”

It noted that the term “impound” is not used in the Act and cannot be implied. “The expression used in Section 206 is ‘seize’, not ‘impound’”, it added.

On the meaning of “reason to believe”, the Court explained, “The expression ‘reason to believe’ must be founded upon objective and verifiable facts. The term ‘believe’ should not be confused with ‘suspect’. This belief must be based on objective satisfaction rather than subjective interpretation.”

The Court remarked, “No citizen should be subjected to rude or arrogant conduct by any staff or officer of any department. The justification that such behaviour is necessary for maintaining law and order cannot be accepted. Public servants are expected to uphold constitutional values and act with restraint, courtesy, and accountability in their interactions with the public.”

The Court took note of the printed compound slip and observed, “From the printed compound slip issued by the respondent officer, it appears that the same has already been filled up and the person is asked to sign the same. It is difficult to accept that the person is afforded an opportunity to choose between compounding the offence or facing trial before the learned Magistrate.”

Referring to Section 206, the Bench said, “…the licence seized is to be forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction. The police officer is not authorised to disqualify the driver or to suspend his licence. That power is conferred upon the licensing authority under Section 19 and the Court under Section 20.”

While refraining from ordering departmental action, the Court issued a caution to the officer and directed refresher training. It observed, “This Court refrains from issuing any directions to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent officer but formally cautions him to strictly adhere to the provisions of the law and to act in a more responsible manner in the future.”

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition while directing the Deputy Commissioner (Traffic) to organise appropriate training and ensure that, in every instance of licence seizure, an acknowledgment is mandatorily issued. The Court further held that prior to compounding any offence, officers shall verify whether the individual intends to contest the allegation before the Magistrate and shall strictly adhere to due process and the applicable provisions of law.

Cause title: Subhrangsu Panda v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 9004 of 2024)

Appearance

Petitioner: In person

Respondents: Advocates Wasim Ahmed, Sk. Md. Masud.