Central Information Commission
Pradeep Dutta vs Delhi Police on 28 June, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000449
Dated 21.06.2017
Appellant : Shri Pradeep Dutta,
A-2, Kailash Colony,
New Delhi-110048.
Respondent : 1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
Delhi Police, O/o Deputy Commissioner of
Police (DCP), South East District, Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi-110044.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
O/o the Additional Prosecutor , Directorate of
Prosecution, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 29.11.2016/ 21.06.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 08.06.2015
CPIO's reply : 08.07.2015/28.07.2015
First appeal : 27.07.2015/03.08.2015
FAA's order : 18.08.2015
Second appeal : 04.11.2015
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), South East District, Delhi Police seeking inspection of the police file in Case FIR No. 33/02 Page | 1 (State v. Pradeep Dutta) and Case FIR No. 34/02 (State v. Balbir Singh), both registered in Police Station, Greater Kailash Part I on 04.02.2002 and 05.02.2002 respectively.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO, South East District informed him that the said Police files in FIR No. 33/02 and 34/02 registered at P.S. Greater Kailash-I are pending trial in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Saket Court and was requested to approach the trial court for inspection of the said case files and the RTI application was then transferred to the PIO, Prosecution Branch, Saket Court for providing further information to the applicant and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not respond to his appeal. The appellant states that the CPIO, Directorate of Prosecution, to whom his RTI application was transferred denied inspection of the files in view of the provisions of Section 172 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), Section 126 Evidence Act and Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the information sought as it relates to his own case.
Hearing on 29.11.2016:
3. Both the appellant Shri Pradeep Dutta and the respondent Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought inspection of the Police file but the same was denied to him on the ground that the matter is pending trial. The appellant further submitted that no exemption has been claimed while rejecting the RTI application and the first appeal and that no speaking order has been passed by the FAA in response to his first appeal. The appellant also stated that CPIO, Prosecution Branch, Tis Hazari Court has also been made a respondent to the case. However, he has not been summoned by the Commission.
Page | 2
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 08.07.2015 that the matter is pending trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Saket Court and, therefore, the RTI application of the appellant was transferred to the Prosecution Branch, Saket Court under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for taking further action.
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that notice of hearing has not been served on the Additional Public Prosecutor and CPIO, Prosecution Branch, Tis Hazari Court, who is the second respondent in the case. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry to issue a fresh notice to the Additional Public Prosecutor and CPIO, Prosecution Branch, Tis Hazari Court and thereafter, list the matter for hearing.
Interim Decision
7. The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that the Notice of Hearing has not been served on both the appellant and the respondents. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a fresh Notice of Hearing to the appellant and both the respondents. The matter is adjourned to 14.07.2017 at 10.30 a.m.
8. Copy of the interim decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S. S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page | 3