The Bombay High Court allowed a petition praying that the reward which is given to the Informers is unjustifiably withheld. The Court observed that the approach should not be such that it discourages the Informers from coming forward.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is the wife of the deceased Informer who provided specific information to the office of the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Mumbai Commissionerate of Customs which led to the seizure of smuggled goods.
Based on the information supplied by the husband of the petitioner, the premises of the Jewellers were searched in March 1991 and rough diamonds worth Rs. 3.21 lakhs and polished diamonds worth Rs. 84.47 lakhs were recovered. The Jewellers could not offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the legality of the import and storage of the diamonds. The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and by order dated 3 December 1992, confiscation of the diamonds was directed with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 60 lakhs.
On 9 April 1993 and thereafter in 1999, the Respondents disbursed an advance reward of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 2 lakhs, respectively, to the Informer. The Petitioner’s husband Chandrakant made a series of representations for the release of the final reward in respect of the information given on 21 March 1991. After the death of Chandrakant, the Petitioner, a widow, continued to send requests to release the final reward for her husband.
After various correspondences with the Respondents, the Petitioner did not receive any satisfactory reply except that the matter was under process. With the last communication of 31 January 2019 receiving yielding no result, the Petitioner filed the present petition praying for a direction to the Respondents to release the final reward which was due to her husband-Chandrakant under the policy.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed on record the emails exchanged between two officers of the Customs Department. The emails showed that the officers had discussed Chandrakant’s issue and had made his representations to the finance minister and the Chief Commissioner of Customs.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel of the Respondent stated that the signature on the information note and the signature on the ration card and pan card provided by the Petitioner do not match. The Respondent argued that it is not possible to conclude that the Petitioner's husband was the Informer, and the signatures do not tally; therefore, the final reward cannot be issued as it is subject to the establishment of identity.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that it is important to note that two interim rewards were released. There was no communication from the Respondents, till 2019, questioning the identity or the right of Chandrakant to claim the reward. The Petitioner has given a reasonable explanation for variances in the signature of her husband on the receipt and subsequent signature that her husband had lost his eyesight due to an accident.
The Court observed that considering the totality of the circumstances, the claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of identity. Though there is no legal right to demand a reward, as stated in the policy, the rejection must not be arbitrary, and the approach should not be such that it discourages the Informers from coming forward.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the Respondents will treat the claim of the Petitioner's husband – Chandrakant as eligible for the grant of final reward in respect of the concerned case and process the Petitioner’s claim as his legal heir.
Case Title: Jayashree Chandrakant Dhavre vs Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Nitin Jamdar and Hon’ble Justice Dhananjay Deshmukh
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
