'Wasting Judicial Time': Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Reward From CBI For Tip-Off On Illegal Luxury Car Imports

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took note of the CBI's submission that it did not have any scheme for the grant of a reward to informers. Though the petitioner argued that he had received such a reward from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the court noted that the petitioner was barking up the wrong tree by claiming such compensation from the CBI.

“Further, when according to the petitioner, he had got a reward of Rs.27,000/- from the DRI, it is incomprehendible to this Court as to how the petitioner seeks the balance reward from the CBI, when the CBI, as already stated, does not have any guidelines qua grant of reward to informers. This approach by the petitioner only impels and compels this Court to observe that the petitioner is barking up the wrong tree and predicates his claim on a non-existent set of guidelines,” the court said.

The court thus recorded its annoyance with the petitioner's conduct for filing multiple writ petitions seeking the same relief and wasting judicial time. However, noting that the petitioner was a party in person, the court refrained from imposing costs.

“Accordingly, this writ petition (crl.) stands dismissed and while holding so, this Court records its feeling of displeasure and annoyance towards the petitioner in filing one writ petition after the other seeking the same relief, thereby wasting the judicial time. However, the petitioner, being a party-in person, this Court, taking a lenient view, refrains from imposing costs on him hoping that he will mend his ways,” the court said.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by MJ Sankar challenging a communication issued by the CBI holding that his claim for reward was invalid. The petitioner had also sought a direction to the CBI to process his reward as per his representation.

The court was informed that in the year 2008, the DRI initiated large scale investigations against one Alex C Joseph with respect to import of luxury cars from countries like South Africa, Canada, etc based on information given by Sankar and his father.

In recognition of the contribution, Sankar and his father were given an amount of Rs 27,000 in 2010 as token reward by the CBI. Claiming that they were entitled to get a reward of Rs 1,55,000, Sankr's father wrote to the DRI seeking balance reward amount. In the reply, it was informed that the original files had been seized by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the CBI, and further information could not be given.

In 2012, seeing no progress in the investigation, Sankar wrote a letter to the ADSP, CBI explaining corruption and involvement of P Murugan, Head of ACB, CBI in covering up the investigation owing to involvement of bigwigs in the case.

Thereafter, in 2023, Sankar wrote a letter to the CBI seeking balance reward. A reply was issued stating that the claim was invalid since no records were found to show that the CBI had registered any case pursuant to the tip off given by Sankar. This communication was challenged by Sankar in the present case.

Opposing his claim, the CBI argued that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the progress s of investigation. It was also submitted that CBI had no scheme or obligation to grant reward to informers and Sankar's case was rightly rejected.

The court noted that though Sankar had filed a similar petition previously, he had not produced any evidence to show on what basis he could claim a balance reward of Rs 1,28,000. Though the petitioner relied on a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, regardin grant of reward to informers and Government servants which is captioned as “Guidelines for grant of reward to informers and Government Sevants, 2015”, the court noted that the guidelines of DRI could not be relied on to claim reward from CBI.

Thus, finding no materials, the court was not inclined to accept the prayer and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.J. Sankar - Party-in-person

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. N. Baaskaran Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

Case Title: MJ Sankar v Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 186

Case No: W.P. (Crl.) No.246 of 2026