Case Background
This case arose from a criminal writ petition filed in the Patna High Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 434 of 2022. The petitioner was the owner of a crane bearing registration number BR2H 6948. He used this crane for towing vehicles and earning his livelihood.
On 06.06.2019, according to the petitioner, the chowkidar of Aurangabad (M) Police Station called him for towing a Bolero pickup van which had met with an accident at Karhara More on G.T. Road, en route to Patna. On that request, the petitioner provided his crane to tow the Bolero to Patna.
On the way, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.), acting on secret information, intercepted the Bolero pickup van near D.R.M. Office, Danapur Station, Saguna More Road, Patna. The Bolero was being towed by the petitioner’s crane. In the crane, two persons were present – the driver, Md. Salamat Murtuza, and the helper (khalasi), Md. Faiz.
On search of the Bolero pickup van, D.R.I. officials seized 47 crates of mangoes and several jute and plastic sacks containing 141 brown coloured packets of a substance believed to be ganja. A criminal case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) was initiated. The crane of the petitioner was also seized on 07.06.2019.
Statements of the driver and helper of the crane were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Both said they had no knowledge about the ganja and were only towing the Bolero as part of their work. The petitioner’s own statement under Section 67 NDPS Act was also recorded, in which he stated he had no knowledge of the ganja and was told that mangoes were loaded on the Bolero.
On 08.06.2019, a prosecution report was submitted by the D.R.I. It recorded that, based on evidence gathered, including call detail records (CDRs) and their statements, no connection could be established between the petitioner, his driver, or his helper and the illicit ganja trade. As a result, they were not arrested and were released, with an understanding that they would cooperate if required during investigation.
Despite this, on 01.08.2019, the same D.R.I. officer (respondent no. 3) moved an application before the Special Court (NDPS), Patna for pre-trial disposal of the crane and the Bolero pickup. On 03.08.2019, in Special Case No. 59 of 2019, the Special Judge allowed the application and permitted disposal of the crane and other seized items. The crane was thereafter auction sold.
The petitioner was not made an accused in the NDPS case and, according to him, was not informed about the move to dispose of his crane. He later approached the trial court for release of the crane, only to learn that it had already been auctioned. His petition before the trial court was rejected on 02.12.2021, with a liberty to pursue appropriate relief for sale proceeds in an appropriate forum.
The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court through the present criminal writ seeking compensation for the arbitrary and illegal sale of his crane. By Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2022, he also sought amendment of the writ prayer to challenge the trial court’s order dated 03.08.2019 permitting pre-trial disposal of the crane.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar, examined whether the crane of a person who was not even an accused could be auctioned without notice to him, and whether such sale was legal under the NDPS Act and the Constitution.
First, the Court considered the admitted stand of the D.R.I. in its counter affidavit. In paragraph 9 of that affidavit, the D.R.I. clearly stated that based on evidence collected during the proceedings, including statements under Section 67 NDPS Act and CDR analysis, “conscious involvement” of the crane driver, the helper, and the crane’s owner in the illicit ganja trade could not be established. Accordingly, they were not arrested and were released, subject to future cooperation.
Despite this clean finding, the D.R.I. moved an application on 01.08.2019 for pre-trial disposal of the crane along with the Bolero and the seized ganja and mangoes. The Special Court, relying on prior certification of seized articles by a Magistrate, allowed the application on 03.08.2019 and authorised disposal of the crane and other items “as per rule”.
The High Court noted that the order dated 03.08.2019 recorded only the presence of the Special Public Prosecutor and did not show that any notice was issued to the crane’s owner or that he was heard before his property was ordered to be disposed of. The petitioner was not even an accused in the NDPS case.
The Court then examined Section 60 of the NDPS Act, which deals with confiscation of illicit drugs, articles, and conveyances. Section 60(3) makes any conveyance used for carrying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances liable to confiscation unless the owner proves that the conveyance was so used without his knowledge or connivance, and that he and those in charge took all reasonable precautions against such use.
The Court explained that confiscation under Section 60(3) is not automatic. If the owner can show that he had no knowledge or involvement and had taken reasonable precautions, the vehicle cannot be confiscated even if it was used in the offence. In this case, the prosecution itself had already found no involvement of the petitioner and his staff in the illicit ganja trade.
The Court also emphasised Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to property. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. Selling the crane of a person who was not an accused, and without hearing him, was held to be contrary to this constitutional protection.
The D.R.I. and Customs authorities argued that:
- The crane was a “conveyance” used to transport a vehicle from which ganja was recovered, making it liable to confiscation under Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act and similar provisions in Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- The trial court had already passed a pre-trial disposal order on 03.08.2019, which was not promptly challenged.
- The Customs Department had only followed the Disposal Manual, 2019 and the trial court’s orders in e-auctioning the crane.
- The petitioner approached the court for release only after the pre-trial disposal order and after the crane had already been auctioned. The trial was still pending and the issue of final confiscation or release of sale proceeds was subject to the outcome of the trial.
They also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Mohanlal and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379, to support disposal of seized narcotics and related goods, and filed affidavits explaining auction procedure and internal departmental steps.
However, the High Court focused on two crucial aspects:
First, the prosecution had officially found that the petitioner and his employees were not involved in the crime and therefore did not treat them as accused. In such a situation, there was a higher responsibility on the D.R.I. to correctly inform the Special Court that the owner was not before the court and that his property rights were at stake.
Second, the order directing disposal of the crane was passed behind the back of the true owner, without any notice or opportunity of hearing. This, the Court found, was a violation of due process and of the petitioner’s property rights under Article 300A.
The Court also took note that the crane had been valued at Rs. 3,00,000/- by the authorities and sold through e-auction. The petitioner’s case was that it was in good condition and sold at an undervalued price; however, the High Court did not re-assess auction details but accepted the department’s own valuation as the basis for compensation.
The Court concluded that the order dated 03.08.2019 in Special Case No. 59 of 2019, permitting disposal of the crane, was “bad in law” and unsustainable. However, by the time of the writ hearing, the crane had already been auctioned and handed over to the successful bidder. Reversal of the sale was considered impractical at this late stage.
To balance these realities, the Court chose to grant monetary compensation rather than attempt to undo the sale. It held that the petitioner had been unlawfully deprived of his crane, which was his source of income and livelihood, and that the sale was carried out without following due process.
Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities:
- To pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner, being the value of the crane as assessed by the authorities themselves.
- To pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on this amount from the date of seizure of the crane.
- To make this payment within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
In addition, noting the arbitrary action of the respondents in seeking pre-trial disposal despite having themselves cleared the petitioner of involvement, and their failure to inform the trial court that the owner was not an accused, the High Court also imposed costs.
The Court directed that an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- be paid to the petitioner as costs, also within eight weeks.
Finally, the Court allowed the criminal writ petition, directed transmission of the original records of Special Case No. 59 of 2019 back to the trial court, and noted that departmental action had been initiated by customs authorities against concerned officers for lapses, as mentioned in their affidavit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for ordinary vehicle owners, especially those whose vehicles are hired or called for towing or transport work and get caught up in NDPS or similar criminal cases.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that:
- Even if a vehicle is used in connection with a narcotics offence, it cannot be taken away permanently or sold without following proper legal procedure.
- If the investigation itself shows that the owner and his staff had no knowledge or role in the crime, the State authorities must inform the court clearly and cannot quietly get the vehicle disposed of behind the owner’s back.
- Property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution protect even those who are not powerful or influential. Government agencies cannot ignore these rights.
Practically, this judgment reassures small operators like crane owners, truck drivers and transporters that courts will step in and order compensation if their vehicles are sold illegally without notice, especially when such vehicles are a source of livelihood.
For enforcement agencies like D.R.I. and Customs, the judgment is a warning: they must ensure that pre-trial disposal applications are fair, transparent, and based on full disclosure to the court, including the status of the vehicle owner and his involvement.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a seized crane belonging to a person who is not an accused, and whose non-involvement is admitted by the prosecution, be auctioned by pre-trial disposal order without notice to him?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that passing a pre-trial disposal order without hearing the bona fide owner, and after the prosecution itself found he was not involved, is bad in law and violates Article 300A. The auction was unlawful and the owner is entitled to compensation. - Issue: What is the consequence when unlawful auction and deprivation of property cannot be reversed because the property has already been sold to a third party?
Answer: The Court held that in such circumstances, appropriate monetary compensation with interest and costs must be awarded to the owner, based on the authorities’ own valuation of the property. - Issue: How does Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act apply to conveyances used in offences when the owner claims lack of knowledge?
Answer: The Court clarified that confiscation of a conveyance under Section 60(3) is subject to proof that the vehicle was not used with the knowledge or connivance of the owner or those in charge, and that reasonable precautions were taken. Where the prosecution itself finds no involvement of the owner and staff, confiscation and disposal cannot be justified.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Union of India v. Mohanlal and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 (referred to by the respondents in support of disposal of seized goods).
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 434 of 2022
Arising out of: PS Case No. 11 of 2019, Thana – D.R.I., District – Patna
Case Title: Nurul Hasan Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025(4) PLJR 723
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ram Pravesh Nath Tiwari, Advocate; Ms. Soobiya Mushtaque, Advocate
- For the Respondents (Union of India / D.R.I. / Customs): Mr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India; Mr. Anshuman Singh, Senior Central Government Counsel
Nature of the Case: Criminal writ petition seeking compensation for illegal and arbitrary pre-trial disposal and auction sale of seized crane in an NDPS case
Date of Judgment: 17.10.2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction
Link to Judgment: Click here to view the full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
