Supreme Court Raises Informer Reward to 60 Lakhs, Emphasizes Persistence

The Supreme Court increased the reward amount from &8377; 50 lakhs to &8377; 60 lakhs for the informer who provided information leading to the discovery of duty evasion by a company. The Court emphasized that while rewards do not confer vested rights, the appellant's persistent pursuit of the reward warranted a final settlement. The respondent was directed to pay the additional &8377; 10 lakhs within two months, with no costs awarded. The judgment was specific to this case's unique circumstances and not a precedent for future cases.

---

---

Issues involved: Arbitrary withholding of reward u/s reward policy framed by Government for information supplied, appeal against remand order of Delhi High Court to consider rewards afresh by Reward Committee.

The appellant's grievance was that the respondent No. 1 had arbitrarily withheld the reward due to him u/s the reward policy framed by the Government for the information provided by him. The appellant approached the High Court twice in writ jurisdiction and once filed a contempt petition for redressal of his grievance. The matter was remanded to the Reward Committee by the Delhi High Court to reconsider the rewards awarded. The Customs Department discovered evasion of duty by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Limited based on the appellant's information, leading to recovery of Customs duty and penalty. The appellant had been paid &8377; 50 lacs so far based on various decisions by the Reward Committees.

The 7th Reward Committee independently examined the case and recommended a total reward of &8377; 50 lakhs to the informer, which was considered just, fair, and commensurate with the information provided. The Committee opined that the appellant should be awarded an additional amount of &8377; 10 lakhs, making the total reward payable to him &8377; 60 lakhs as a full and final settlement. The Supreme Court increased the reward amount from &8377; 50 lakhs to &8377; 60 lakhs, considering the appellant's long-standing litigation for an appropriate reward under the policy.

The Court acknowledged that the reward does not confer any vested right upon the informer but, in this case, due to the appellant's prolonged pursuit for the reward over the years, the matter needed closure. The interest of justice would be served by awarding the appellant &8377; 60 lakhs as a final settlement. The respondent was directed to pay the balance sum of &8377; 10 lakhs to the appellant within two months. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing that the judgment was specific to the unique circumstances of the case and not a precedent for other cases.

---