DIPANKAR DUTTA Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows : The petitioner Mr. Dutta appearing in person submitted that the licence of the petitioner was seized by the police authorities although the petitioner agreed to face the trial, even then the concerned police officer being the respondent No. 6 insisted him to sign a compound slip admitting the guilt. According to Mr. Dutta, he is agreeable to face the trial. In that case it is the duty of the concerned police officer to hand over the seizure list only and further he submitted that the police officer has not any right to seize the licence until and unless he had reason to believe that offender may abscond and then only has a right to seize the licence after recording the reasons. According to him, he duly disclosed his identity to the respondent No. 6 and further explained the position of law after disclosing his identity, even then he refused to pay any heed to the petitioner and seized licence. He further contended that such action on the part of the said authority is in violation of the provisions of Section 206 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The concerned police officer Mr. Rakesh Kundu is personally present in Court. He submits through his learned Counsel that steps were taken by him against the petitioner wrongly since he did not understand the intricacies of law, and also that he has acted at the instance of his superiors and not otherwise. It is further submitted on his behalf that due to his ignorance about the relevant provisions of law, he has wrongly seized the driving licence without issuing proper seizure list and tenders his unqualified apology before this Court.

(3.) Ms: Roy, learned Counsel submits that her client shall return the driving licence to the petitioner and no further steps shall be taken in the matter.