TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upi 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 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice, and others. The plaintiff was in the scene till 7.00 p.m. By the time, the plain tiff 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. 6. The Customs Inspector Shri Patali assured the plaintiff that the plain tiff, being the first informant, will be recommended to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive 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 re ward ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 under Section 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. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, assa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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." 15. The entire claim of the plaintiff is based on the said guidelines. A perusal of the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3/85-Ad.V, dated 30-3-1985. Section 4.1 of the said guidelines reads thus: 16. 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 ....