Central Information Commission
Mr.Abdul Lateef Adam Momin vs Cbi on 11 September, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002502
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 11 September 2012
Date of decision : 11 September 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Abdul Lattef Adam Mamin,
M40, Anda Circle 2/4,
Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road,
Mumbai - 400 011.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Special Crime - III, Plot No. 5B,
3rd Floor, B Wing, CGO Complex,
New Delhi110 003.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Rishi Prakash, S.P
(ii) Shri R.K. Jha, Inspector
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was not present during the hearing in the Mumbai studio of the NIC, presumably because he was in prison. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought the certified copies of a number of documents, such as, Lock up Diary entry, Case Diary entry and Station Diary entries in CIC/SM/A/2011/002502 respect of the Appellant himself when he was placed in the police lockup. The CPIO had refused to disclose any such information on the ground that the CBI had since been placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
4. It is to be noted that the RTI application is dated 19 May 2011 while the CBI was included in the Second Schedule with effect from 9 June 2011. Therefore, the CBI could not have refused to consider his application only on the ground that it had since been included in the Second Schedule. However, there are other grounds on which the desired information need not be disclosed. As submitted by the Respondents during the hearing, the Appellant was an accused in the Kandahar Plane Hijack case and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The CBI is still in the process of investigating into this case because several other accused persons have not been apprehended till now. In their opinion, disclosure of the desired information would impede the investigation under way. After carefully considering the circumstances of the case and the submissions made before us, we are in full agreement with the views of the Respondents. There is no need to disclose the information at this stage. Subsection 1(h) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly exempts such information from disclosure which has the potential to impede either investigation into any case or prosecution of any offender.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. CIC/SM/A/2011/002502 (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/002502