2009 (7) TMI 725 - HC - Customs

Plaintiff's Claim for Smuggling Reward Dismissed for Failure to Meet Criteria

The Karnataka HC upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for a reward related to reporting a smuggling incident. The court ... Reward to informer – The plaintiff 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. Held that – no legal right vested in plaintiff to be enforced by court of law. Reward eligibility depending on fulfillment of several conditions as per departmental guidelines. Allegation, if accepted leading to conclusion that plaintiff saw vessel carrying contraband goods and vessel was standard and such information given to sepoy of Customs Department. Person indulging in smuggling and destination to which unloaded contraband goods taken not seen by plaintiff. Written complaints not lodged with custom department. Information given even if true not satisfies requirements prescribed for reward. Thus the impugned order holding plaintiff as not an informer not entitled to reward, sustainable. The Karnataka High Court judgment involves an appeal by the plaintiff against the trial court's dismissal of his claim for payment of a reward. The plaintiff, a resident of Malpe, Udupi Taluk, claimed to be the first informant of a smuggling incident on 18-7-1988. He reported a stranded vessel to customs officials and provided valuable information leading to the recovery of smuggled goods. The plaintiff sought a reward of 20% of the goods' value. The trial court found the plaintiff failed to prove he was the first informant and dismissed his suit. The appeal argued that the plaintiff's actions met the reward guidelines, but the High Court upheld the trial court's decision. The judgment emphasized that rewards are discretionary and subject to specific conditions, which the plaintiff did not fully meet. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reward and dismissed the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of meeting specific criteria to qualify for rewards and the discretionary nature of such payments.