Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 529 (PNJ)

Krishan Gopal Dhawan v. Union Of India

2005-04-27

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2005
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. This petition arises out of the following facts ;- 2. On the information supplied by the petitioner, 245 gold biscuits were seized by the Custom and Police Department on 17.1.1994 and the smugglers, who were carrying the contraband, were arrested. A sum of Rs. 7,14,000/- was sanctioned as reward money and paid to the petitioner on 30.5.1994 and he was also informed that the final reward would be paid to him only after the case had been finally adjudicated upon by the competent authority.lt is the admitted case that a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner thereafter. The petitioner, however, continued making representations to the respondents that as per paragraph 3.1.1 of the Government instructions dated 30.3.1985, copy Annexure P-l to the petition he was entitled to a reward of upto 20% of the market value of the goods involved and that he had received only a paltry amount and that the balance amount be paid to him. As no action was taken by the respondents on the petitioners claim, he issued a legal notice and having yet again failed to elicit any response has filed the present petition. Reference in this case has been made to paragraph 3.1.1 of the aforesaid instructions. 3. A reply has been filed by Shri Amresh Jain, Assistant Commissioner, Anti Smuggling, Customs Commissioner at Amritsar, in which it has been admitted that consequent upon the information given by the petitioner the contraband in question had been seized and that the reward due to him had been released and that no further amount was due. It has further been pleaded that 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized, as referred in paragraph 3.1.1. of Annexure P-1, provide the ceiling limit for the reward and it was open to the competent authority, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the cases, the nature and danger involved in providing the information to the Department, to determine an amount less than the maxim amount. 4. Mr. Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that as per showing of the Department, 245 gold biscuits that had been seized consequent upon the information given by the petitioner, were valued at Rs. 1,35,76,773/- and Rs. 4. Mr. Chopra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that as per showing of the Department, 245 gold biscuits that had been seized consequent upon the information given by the petitioner, were valued at Rs. 1,35,76,773/- and Rs. 10,14,000/- given to the petitioner did not represent 20% of the value of the goods and no reasons have been spelt out for having given the lesser amount. As against this, Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, the learned counsel for Union of India, has urged that the 20% reward referred in paragraph 3.1.1. was the maximum and it was always open to the competent authority to give a lesser amount keeping in view the fact that the informer may not have under gone serious danger or discomfort while giving the information. In this connection, she has referred to Paragraph 4.1 of the instructions, Annexure P-1. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. It is the admitted position that 20% reward claimed by the petitioner has not been given to him. It is also the admitted position that it was his information that had led to the recovery of the contraband. It is equally true that paragraph 3.1.1. of the instructions, Annexure P-l, provides for the maximum 20% of the estimated market value of the goods to be given as reward and that in Paragraph 4.1, referred to above, a lesser amount can be given. I am, however, of the opinion that in case an amount below 20% i.e. ceiling figure has to be given to the informer, as per paragraph 4.1, some reasons must be spelt out by the competent authority at a stage prior to the payment of the reward. I find that these reasons have, for the first time, been provided in Paragraph 9 of the written statement. Paragraph 9 is reproduced below:- "9. That the contents of Para No. 9 of the writ petition are wrong and incorrect, hence denied. On 20.10.1998, the final reward was paid to the petitioner-informer and the same was sanctioned as per guidelines as final reward. It is denied that no such representation as given in this paragraph was received by the answering department. The answering respondent candidly submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any other relief by this Hon ble Court in the matter of reward. It is denied that no such representation as given in this paragraph was received by the answering department. The answering respondent candidly submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any other relief by this Hon ble Court in the matter of reward. It is denied that the petitioner has been harassed unnecessarily. The petitioner should have been satisfied with what has been paid to him. The amount of Rs. 10,14,000/- is quite sufficient as determined by the competent authority for just a vague information supplied by the petitioner-informer. The, petitioner-informer did not come forward to apprehend the culprits. Rather his life was not put to risk by the answering department. It is specifically denied that the final reward has not been settled." 7. It is indeed surprising that the respondents, while accepting the information given by the petitioner, leading to the recovery, have held that the competent authority was of the opinion that only vague information had been supplied by the petitioner and that he had himself not come forward to apprehend the culprits and was, therefore, not entitled to the full reward amount. I, however, find that the reasons given in Paragraph 9 of the written statement are clearly irrelevant and an after-thought. To say that the information given by the petitioner was vague, is to say the least clearly unacceptable. Moreover, it would be evident from the instructions, Annexure P-l, that the reward has to be given to an informer leading to the recovery of contraband and it is not the requirement of the instructions that he should participate in the apprehension of the smugglers, which was clearly the duty of the employees of the department. 8. I had, at one stage, toyed with the idea of remitting the matter to the department for reconsideration but in the light of the fact that the department has taken a firm stand in the written statement, challenging the petitioners claim,it would be a futile exercise to do so. 9. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents that the balance amount of the reward shall be paid to the petitioner within four months from the date that a certified copy of this order is made available to them. No order as to costs.