H. Sheena Billava vs Secretary, Ministry of Finance

N. Kumar, J.—This is a plaintiff''s appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing his claim for payment of the amount claimed as reward.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

The plaintiff is a resident of Malpe of Kodavoor Village, Udupi Taluk. He is an employee working in the N.C.C. of Karnataka Naval Unit and he is also a fisherman by birth. His case is that, on the midnight of 18-7-1988, at about 1.00 a.m., he was catching fish by the side of Padukere river near the seashore facing north along with one M.K. Diwakar, his friend. At that time, one big vessel accompanied by a fishing boat dashed against the seashore behind the back of the plaintiff at a distance of about 30 feet on the southern side creating a big sound. The vessel was stranded. The persons in the vessel got down and fired gun shots in the air. The light of the vessel was put off. The persons in the vessel, who were about 10 to 12 in number, got down from the vessel. They first removed all the goods they brought in the fishing boat and thereafter partly removed the smuggled goods brought in the vessel for about an hour. This work was carried out in dark. Thereafter, they burnt the fishing boat brought by them and fled away.

The plaintiff and his friend waited till 4.00 a.m. as there was no boat available to them to cross Padukere river and reach Malpe. At 5.00 a.m., they reached the Customs Office at Malpe. There was no light in the Customs Office and nobody was there and it was under lock and key. Then, the plaintiff''s friend Diwakar left for his home. Thereafter, the plaintiff proceeded towards the residence of Vasudeva, a sepoy of customs office at Malpe. He reached there at 5.40 a.m. and informed the sepoy about the stranded vessel at Padukere. The sepoy told him that he would go the residence of the Customs Inspector, Malpe, and inform him about the stranded vessel. The plaintiff wanted to accompany him. But, the sepoy told the plaintiff that as the house of the customs inspector is at a distance of more than four kilometers, the plaintiff need not accompany him and that he would go on his bicycle. Thereafter, the plaintiff returned to his house at about 6.45 a.m.

He finished his work in the office at 2.00 p.m. and then went to the scene at about 3.00 p.m. at Padukere where the vessel was stranded. At that time, he saw there Mr. D'' Souza, Superintendent of Customs, Mangalore, Mr. Patali, Inspector of Customs, Malpe, and one Mr. Bhandari, Inspector, Preventive Office, and others. The plaintiff was in the scene till 7.00 p.m. By the time, the plaintiff went to the scene, all the smuggled goods recovered from the stranded vessel had already been transported to the customs office at Malpe. He was asked to be present there as he was the first informer. Thereafter, he continuously met Shri D'' Souza in the customs office at Malpe and have him very valuable hints regarding pilferage of smuggled goods by the locals and the officials, acting on the said hints given by the plaintiff, collected silver ingots and articles like video cassettes and VCR etc, from some of the locals.

The Customs Inspector Shri Patali assured the plaintiff that the plaintiff, being the first informant, will be recommended to receive the reward from his department. The plaintiff waited for some time. However, he came to know that the name of one Sukumaran was suggested as the first informant, who had been granted the reward. The said Sukumaran is a person deliberately set up by the Customs Department to knock off the reward. Therefore, he contends that the total value of the smuggled goods is about Rs. 83,29,519/- and hence he is entitled to 20% of the said value as reward, which works out to Rs. 16,64,591.38 ps.

The plaintiff came to know that the fourth defendant has liberally and out of proportion distributed over Rs. 5,99,850/- by way of rewards to all the officials of the Customs Department working in Malpe, Kundapura and Udupi and also to the officials of the Telephone Department at Udupi and Ors. who are remotely connected to the haul at Malpe. Therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to issue notice dated 24-10-1990 against all the defendants, which was duly served on them and no reply was sent by them and, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,47,871.40 ps.

After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance. They filed a detailed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. After specifically denying the allegations in the plaint, they have taken a specific stand that the plaintiff was never an informer or the first informant which led to the recovery of goods as per rules and as such, he is entitled to receive the reward. None of the customs officials were informed by the plaintiff nor can he claim that he did inform. Neither Vasudeva or any official of the Customs Department was informed by the plaintiff about the stranding of the vessel "Super Floot". His assertion is nothing but a tissue of falsehood. The recoveries were made by the customs officials of their own accord after drawing up necessary mahazars. Even the name of the plaintiff did not figure as a first, informer in DRI-1 (FIR) as, in fact, there were no informers at all in this case. The allegation that one Sukumaran has been recommended for reward is nothing but a figment of imagination of the plaintiff. Payment of reward to the officers has no bearing on the payment of reward to the informer. The plaintiff cannot have any grievance and distribution of amount as reward, even if made, can have no basis for the plaintiff. He cannot claim reward as a matter of right, more so when he is not an informer. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is a resident of Padukere and that the distance of his house from sea shore is 500 meters and 100 yards from the customs house at Malpe?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves the incident occurred on 18-7-1988?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the first informant and therefore he is entitled to receive the reward from the customs department?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that the notice u/s 80 C.P.C. has been issued in accordance with law?

(v) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants?

(vi) Whether the plaint is barred by time to claim the reward? (vii) To what order or decree?

The plaintiff, in support of his case, examined himself as P.W. 1 and he has produced eight documents, which are marked as Exs. P-1 to P-8. On behalf of the defendants, P. Mahalinga Patali, Inspector of Customs, was examined as D.W. 1 and no documents were produced on their behalf.

The trial court, on consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the plaintiff has proved that he is a resident of Padukere and that the distance of his house from seashore is 500 meters and 100 yards from the customs house at Malpe. He has also proved that the incident occurred on 18-7-1988. But, he has failed to prove that he is the first informant and, therefore, he is not entitled to receive the reward from the Customs Department. He has proved that the notice issued u/s 80 of the C.P.C. is in accordance with law. The trial court also held that there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is not barred by time and, accordingly, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, assailing the impugned judgment and decree, contended that the material on record clearly establishes that the claimant is the first informant of the incident, which took place on 18-7-1988. The said fact is established by Ex. P-1, wherein the respondents have acknowledged that the plaintiff gave news regarding the stranded vessel. Admittedly, as per Ex. P-l, no reward is sanctioned to any informant in the case. But, on the contrary, Ex. P-2 shows that a sum of Rs. 5,99,850/- has been distributed by the defendants to nearly 95 officers of the Customs Department for seizure of silver ingots, video cassettes, digital wrist watches, telephones, watch movements, etc., of foreign origin which were smuggled into India through dumped vessel MSU Super fleet. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed material on record, the trial court was not justified in holding that the plaintiff is not the first informant and that he is not entitled to the reward.

Therefore, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

Whether the trial court was justified in recording a finding that the plaintiff is not the first informant and, therefore, he is not entitled to reward as claimed by him?

Though elaborate evidence is recorded in this case, the said evidence is not of much assistance in deciding the point under controversy. The plaintiff''s right to claim reward is based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi (Department of Revenue) in F. No. 13011/3/85-Ad.V, dated 30-3-1985. Section 4.1 of the said guidelines reads thus:

Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which subject to the guidelines, may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right in determining the reward which may be granted, the authority competent to grant reward will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer whether the information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling or their associates etc. the risk involved, for the government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securing the information, the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizure, special initiative, whether efforts and ingenuity displayed etc. and whether besides the seizure of contraband goods the owners/organizers/financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not.

The entire claim of the plaintiff is based on the said guidelines. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the reward is purely an ex-gratia payment, which may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and it cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. Therefore, it is clear that it is not a legal right, which is vested in the plaintiff, which he could enforce in a court of law. Further, the said reward is subject to various conditions. The said section makes it clear that in determining the reward which may be granted, the authority has to keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and the trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether the information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling or their associates, etc., the risk involved for the government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securing the information, the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizure, special initiative, whether'' efforts and ingenuity displayed etc. It is only when all those conditions are satisfied, the first informant of the aforesaid information will be eligible for reward at the discretion of the authority.

In the instant case, even if the allegation of the plaintiff is accepted as true and correct, all that it leads to is that the plaintiff saw a vessel carrying the contraband goods dashed against the seashore and it was stranded and about 10 to 12 persons, who were in the vessel came out and unloaded the contraband. This is the information that he has given to a sepoy who was attached to the Customs Department at his residence. Thereafter, he saw the officials only at the spot at about 3.00 p.m. From this, it is clear that the plaintiff has not seen the persons, who were indulging in smuggling activity. He has not seen the contraband goods, which were carried in the vessel and which were unloaded, and to which destination they were taken. He did not lodge any written complaint with the Customs Department. All that he has done is informing a sepoy at his residence about the arrival of the said vessel and it being stranded and the goods in the said vessel being unloaded by 10 to 12 persons. He did not give about their names and whereabouts. Therefore, this information, even if it is true, does not satisfy the requirements which are prescribed in the aforesaid section for being eligible for reward.

In the above circumstances, the trial court, on proper appreciation of the oral and the documentary evidence produced in the case, has rightly held that the plaintiff cannot be said to be an informer and, as he does not satisfy the requirements prescribed under the guidelines, he is not entitled to any reward.

In the facts of the case, we do not see any good ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial court, which is based on evidence. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.