Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 801 (KER)

Habeeb Shaji v. The State Of Kerala

2009-08-24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

body2009
Judgment : On the allegation that petitioner was riding scooter KL-43A/6485 negligently under the influence of alcohol, Crime No.5820 of 2009 of Ernakulam City Traffic Police Station was registered for offences under sections 279 IPC and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi took cognizance of the offence as S.T.No.2415 of 2009. Petitioner pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, which was remitted under Annexure-A receipt on 9-7-2009. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the second respondent to release the driving licence seized, contending that police has no authority to retain the driving licence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor are heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the driving licence was seized under section 206 of the Act and it was sent to the Deputy Transport Officer for proceeding under section 19 of the Act and, therefore, petitioner can approach the Deputy Transport Officer for getting custody of the licence. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that neither section 19 nor section 206 of the Act enables the police officer to seize and retain the driving licence and that too after petitioner was convicted and the fine was remitted and, in such circumstances, a direction may be issued to release the driving licence. 5. Section 206 of the Act deals with power of police officer to seize driving licence. Under sub-section (1) of the Act, any police officer if has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on the motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certification of registration, certificate of insurance or other document produced before him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false document, is empowered to seize the same. Under sub-section (1) of the Act, any police officer if has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on the motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certification of registration, certificate of insurance or other document produced before him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false document, is empowered to seize the same. Sub- section (2) of the Act enables police officer or other person authorized in this behalf by the State Government, if he has reason to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle who is charged with any offence under the Act may abscond or otherwise avoid service of a summons, seize any licence held by such driver and forward it to the court taking cognizance of the offence and court shall on the first appearance of such driver before it, return the licence to him in exchange for the temporary acknowledgment given under sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of the Act provides for giving acknowledgment at the time of seizure. 6. Therefore, under sub-section (2) of section 206 of the Act a police officer is empowered to seize the driving licence only if he has reason to believe that the said person may abscond or otherwise avoid service of summons. Even in such cases, he has to produce the driving licence before the Magistrate and Magistrate is bound to return the licence to the said person, on production of the acknowledgment given to him by the police officer at the time of seizure on the date of first appearance. Section 19 of the Act deals with power of licensing authority to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence. Under sub-section (1) on satisfication a licensing authority is entitled to revoke the driving licence or to suspend the driving licence after giving reasons, after giving notice to the person and giving an opportunity of being heard. 7. Therefore, neither section 206 of the Act nor section 19 of the Act enables the police officer to retain custody of the driving licence seized from the petitioner or to forward it to the Deputy Transport Commissioner. 7. Therefore, neither section 206 of the Act nor section 19 of the Act enables the police officer to retain custody of the driving licence seized from the petitioner or to forward it to the Deputy Transport Commissioner. Even if exercising the power under section (2) of section 206 of the Act, the driving licence of the petitioner was seized, second respondent should have produced it before the Magistrate and the Magistrate should have returned the same to the petitioner, when the petitioner appeared and pleaded guilty and was convicted and the fine imposed was remitted. When there is no direction by the Magistrate to suspend the driving licence, petitioner is bound to get the driving licence released to him. 8. The second respondent is, therefore, directed to release the driving licence to the petitioner. If it is produced before the Deputy Transport Officer, second respondent to obtain it back and release the same to the petitioner without delay. The Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above.