The Patna High Court ruled that if the owner of the vehicle/conveyance proves that his vehicle was used in the commission of the offence without his knowledge or connivance and he has taken all reasonable precautions against such use, the conveyance cannot be confiscated despite it being used in the commission of the alleged offense under the NDPS Act.
Reference was made to Section 60(3) of the NDPS, which provides for confiscation only when the vehicle in question was knowingly being used for illicit purposes.
Finding that the petitioner was deprived of his vehicle (crane) unlawfully, which was his source of income and livelihood, and was sold behind his back without following the due process of law, the Court held that the action of the respondents in disposing of the crane of petitioner without any notice to him was wholly arbitrary.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Kumar observed that Article 300A of the Constitution of India protects the property of the petitioner, and he cannot be deprived of his property save and except in accordance with law. The Bench pointed out that 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 that the owner of the vehicle in question was not before it.
However, since the crane of the petitioner has already been auctioned and sold, without hearing the petitioner, who is the bona fide owner of the crane in question, and such action is irreversible at this belated stage, the Bench directed the respondent authorities to pay an amount of Rs. 4 lacs with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which the vehicle has been seized.
Briefly, in this case, the petitioner’s crane, used for towing vehicles as his source of income, was seized by the DRI after recovering Ganja from a Bolero pickup van that was being towed by his crane. In their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the crane driver refused to have any knowledge about the Ganja.
Despite the investigation concluding that neither the petitioner nor his driver/helper was involved in the illicit trade of Ganja, the DRI applied pre-trial disposal of the crane without any notice to the petitioner. Finally, the crane was auctioned for Rs. 2.55 lacs.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Sajid Salim Khan, along with Advocates Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari and Soobiya Mushtaque, for the Petitioner
Additional SG K.N. Singh and Senior CGC Anshuman Singh, for the Respondent
