UNION OF INDIA Vs. R K RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter relates to reward payable to informers, who give advance information to Revenue Intelligence of Excise and Customs Department. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner, preferred writ petition to direct the appellants, who are respondents to the writ petition to pay reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular F. No. R. 13011/5/88 ADB dated 7th June, 1988. Learned Judge, by impugned order dated 8th March, 2001, having allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to pay the reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular dated 7th June, 1988, in and by which a partial modification to annexure to the instructions contained in the letter dated 30th March, 1985 had been made with regard to quantum of reward payable to the informers, the present appeal has been preferred by Union of India and Revenue authorities.

(2.) IN fact, the case is not based on any question on law and is dependent on the question of facts, particularly the question of fact as admitted by parties. The 1st respondent is a registered informer of the Customs Department. In April, 1991, according to him, he came to know about a smuggling activity to smuggle 99 silver bars into India from Singapore. As per information he received, the smuggled goods were likely to be off-loaded near Tuticorin Port and that he was able to get information about the method to be adopted by persons concerned to smuggle the contraband into India. That, after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the information, he met the 3rd respondent, Preventive Officer, Office of the Collectorate of Customs, Madras (8th respondent to the writ petition) on 7 April, 1991 and informed him that 99 silver bars are likely to be smuggled into India by vessel called 'al-KARA' near Tuticorin Port or its outer anchorage. The 3rd respondent, Preventive Officer, Office of the Collectorate of Customs, Madras, took him to the 2nd respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs Divisional Office, Nagapattinam (7th respondent to the writ petition), who recorded his detailed and accurate information on 9th April, 1991 and a copy of information recorded was also furnished to him. The 4th appellant, Collector of Customs, Madras, who was the 4th respondent, by his letter dated 9th April, 1991, forwarded the gist of information to the 6th appellant, Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras (who was the 6th respondent in the writ petition) for taking necessary action. On 19th April, 1991 , when the respondent contacted the Assistant Collector of Customs, Divisional Office, Nagapattinam and Preventive Officer, Office of Collector of Customs, Madras, he was informed that though the vessel 'al-KARA' was sighted, as per information furnished by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, the same could not be intercepted as the vessel was in the mid sea and due to Coast Guard movement the vessel crew got alerted and sailed straight to the Port of Male without off-loading the contraband. The respondent-writ petitioner claims that though he informed that the vessel may discharge the contraband between Sayalkudi and Tiruchendur, when he contacted the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras about whether to contact the Director of Revenue Intelligence, he was advised that such an action may expose his anonymity and, thereby, create great risk to his life.

(3.) IT transpires that, subsequently, on 19th June, 1991, the vessel 'al-KARA' was intercepted by the Coast Guard and on board "naiki Devi" along with DRI officials. Though, initially the Master of the vessel denied possession of any contraband, but on subsequent questioning, revealed the contraband of 99 silver bars kept in a container near anchor chain room covered by tarpaulin. The manner of concealment tallied with the first information furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner, which was recorded in writing by the respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, Nagapattinam on 9th April, 1991.