CBI has no scheme for informer rewards; claims lacking evidence and guidelines rejected.

ORDER :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

This writ petition (crl.) impugns the communication dated 12.05.2023 addressed by the second respondent to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder, it is stated that the petitioner’s claim for reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not valid. Besides the said certiorari relief, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to process his reward as per his representation dated 22.03.2023.

2. The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, could be projected thus:

2.1. The petitioner, while claiming to be an activitist under the Right to Information Act and a whistleblower engaged in unearthing high profile smuggling cases, submits that his father is a renowned dealer in imported luxury cars.

2.2. In the year 2008, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated a large scale investigation against one Alex C. Joseph qua illegal import of luxury cars from countries like South Africa, Canada, etc., about whom the petitioner and his father had given information to the DRI vide three recording slips, besides identifying the stockyard where the smuggled cars were stored by the said Alex C. Joseph.

2.3. In recognition of the contribution made by the petitioner and his father in this regard, his father was given an amount of Rs.27,000/- in the year 2010 as “token reward” by the CBI, though he was entitled to have got a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-.

2.4. Further, since there was no progress in the investigation conducted by the respondents, the petitioner addressed a complaint dated 27.01.2012 to the A.D.S.P., CBI, inter alia explaining the corruption and involvement of the second respondent in covering up the investigation owing to the involvement of several bigwigs in the offence.

2.5. Thanks to the tip off given by the petitioner, though the first respondent took cognizance of the case and seized 50 cars between 2012 and 2014 for customs duty evasion of Rs.48.50 crores, he and his father were not given the balance reward amount, viz., 1,28,000/- [Rs.1,55,000 (less) Rs.27,000/-], notwithstanding several attempts made by the petitioner in regard thereto.

2.6. Aggrieved, the petitioner’s father addressed a letter to the Additional Director General of the DRI seeking payment of balance reward amount, which was replied vide letter dated 23.03.2015 stating that original investigation files pertaining to the information given by the petitioner’s father had been seized by the Anti Corruption Bureau of the CBI, owing to which, further information could not be given.

2.7. Following that, the petitioner addressed a letter to the first respondent on 22.03.2023 seeking balance reward amount to him and his father, in response to which, the second respondent addressed a letter dated 12.05.2023 to the petitioner stating that his claim for reward from the CBI is invalid, inasmuch, as no records were found to show that the CBI had registered any case in pursuance of the tip off given by him.

2.8. The legality and validity of the aforesaid letter dated 12.05.2023 of the second respondent is called into question in this writ petition, besides seeking a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner’s reward as per his representation dated 22.03.2023, as stated in the opening paragraph.

3. Though the petitioner put forth myriad arguments, the sum and substance of the same is that but for the intelligence provided by him and his father on the modus operandi adopted by the said Alex C. Joseph in the illegal import of luxury cars, the CBI would not have seized 50 cars for customs duty evasion of Rs.48.50 crores and hence, he and his father are entitled to get the balance reward of Rs.1,28,000/- from the respondent