No Notice, No Hearing: Patna HC Slams DRI for Illegal Crane Auction, Orders Compensation [Read Order]

The Patna High Court has allowed the criminal writ petition by directing the Directorate of RevenueIntelligence (DRI) to pay compensation for illegally auctioning crane of petitioner without following due process of law.

Nurul Hasan Khan, the petitioner, is the owner of a crane bearing registration No. BR2H 6948, which was used for towing vehicles as his source of income. The dispute arose when the petitioner's crane was seized by the DRI after ganja was recovered from a Bolero pickup van that was being towed by his crane.

According to the facts of the case, on June 6, 2019, the petitioner was called to tow a Bolero pickup van that had met with an accident. Based on secret information, DRI officials intercepted the Bolero van near Danapur Station, Patna, which was being towed by the petitioner's crane. Upon search, 47 crates of mangoes and 34 sacks containing 141 brown packets of ganja were recovered from the Bolero van.

The statements of the crane driver and helper were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein they stated they had no knowledge about the ganja and were merely towing the van on the owner's direction. The petitioner's statement was also recorded, in which he stated he was unaware of the ganja and was told that only mangoes were loaded on the van.

Despite the investigation concluding that neither the petitioner nor his driver/helper were involved in the illicit trade of ganja (as confirmed in the prosecution report dated June 8, 2019), the DRI filed an application for pre-trial disposal of the crane on August 1, 2019, without any notice to the petitioner. The Special Court allowed this application on August 3, 2019, and the crane was auctioned for Rs. 2,55,000.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the action of the DRI was completely illegal and violated the provisions of the NDPS Act as well as settled principles of law. It was contended that since the petitioner was not made an accused in the case, it was incumbent upon the DRI to release his crane. The petitioner also argued that Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act provides for confiscation only when the vehicle was knowingly used for illicit purposes, which was not the case here.

Per contra, the counsel for the respondents argued that the crane was the conveyance used to transport the narcotic substance and was therefore liable to be confiscated under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act and Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. They maintained that the auction was conducted as per the Disposal Manual, 2019, and no procedural irregularity was pointed out in the e-auction process.

A single bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar, after considering the submissions and perusing the materials on record, observed that the petitioner, who was the owner of the crane, had not been heard before his vehicle was disposed of and subsequently auctioned.

The Court noted that the order dated August 3, 2019, only recorded the appearance of the Special Public Prosecutor, and neither notice had been issued to the owner of the crane nor any opportunity afforded to him.

The Court referred to Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, which provides that any conveyance used in carrying narcotic drugs shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner proves that it was so used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.

The Court observed that in the counter affidavit filed by the DRI, it was categorically stated that the petitioner and his driver/helper were not involved in the illicit trade of ganja. Since the petitioner was not an accused in the NDPS case, it was the duty of the prosecuting agency to bring this fact to the notice of the trial court.

Accordingly, the Court held that the order dated August 3, 2019, by which the crane of the petitioner was auction sold, was bad in law and unsustainable. However, since the crane had already been auction sold, which was irreversible at this belated stage, the Court deemed it appropriate to compensate the petitioner.

The Court directed the respondent authorities to pay Rs. 3,00,000 (the value assessed by the authorities) with interest at 8% per annum from the date of seizure of the vehicle. Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on the respondents for their arbitrary action.

The payment must be made to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court also directed that the original records of Special Case No. 59 of 2019 be transmitted to the concerned trial court.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates