Court rules absence of guidelines for reward in CBI cases; petitioner criticized for repeated legal actions
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M.J. Sankar, who sought a reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for providing information that allegedly led to the seizure of luxury cars involved in customs duty evasion. The court, presided over by Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira, concluded that the CBI does not have any established guidelines or schemes for granting rewards to informers, thereby rendering the petitioner's claim invalid.
The petitioner, M.J. Sankar, asserted that he and his father provided crucial information to the authorities regarding the illegal import of luxury cars, which resulted in the seizure of vehicles worth a customs duty evasion of Rs. 48.50 crores. Despite receiving a token reward of Rs. 27,000 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2010, Sankar claimed entitlement to a balance reward of Rs. 1,28,000, which he believed was due from the CBI.
However, the court emphasized that the CBI and DRI are distinct entities, and reliance on DRI guidelines for a reward claim against the CBI was misplaced. Justice Chandira noted that the petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence or guidelines to support his claim. Furthermore, the court highlighted the lack of any CBI-specific reward scheme, rendering the petitioner's demands baseless.
The court also criticized the petitioner for filing multiple writ petitions with identical grievances, deeming it a wastage of judicial time. Sankar's previous petition on a similar matter had already been dismissed, and the court expressed displeasure over his repetitive legal actions. Nonetheless, considering his status as a party-in-person, the court refrained from imposing costs, urging him to refrain from such actions in the future.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the absence of any entitlement for the petitioner to claim a reward from the CBI without specific guidelines or evidence.
Bottom line:-
Claim for reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by an informer, in absence of any guidelines or rules by the CBI for granting rewards, is not maintainable. Reliance on guidelines of a different agency, such as the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), is misplaced when both agencies are distinct entities.
Statutory provision(s): None specified in the judgment
M.J. Sankar v. Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889640
