Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ms.Rohini Arora vs Delhi Police on 29 June, 2012

                         Central Information Commission
              Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                     Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                        Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000354
                                                                     Dated: 29.06.2012

Name of Appellant                       :       Ms. Rohini Arora

Name of Respondent                      :       Delhi Police, Crime Branch

Date of Hearing                         :       30.05.2012

                                            ORDER

Ms. Rohini Arora, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 23.9.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Delhi Police, Crime Branch for not providing information in reply to her RTI-application dated 18.2.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 30.05.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Dr. Joy N. Tirkey, Addl. DCP, Crime, Shri O.P. Yadav, APIO, Crime, Shri Vikram Rawal, PIO, EOW, Shri Jitender Kuamr, Inspector, Shri Sanjay, Inspector, Shri Kailash Chandes, Inspector, Shri Ravi Tripathi, Dealing Official, District Court, Rohini...

2. The appellant had filed an application dated 18.2.2011, addressed to CPIO, PHQ, under the provisions of the RTI Act seeking information on the following fourteen queries - "(1) Why was FIR not registered by Crime Branch in March/April 2009 when crime was established in preliminary round of investigation. First complaint for unauthorized access was sent to DCP Crime on 30.12.2008. Second complaint for unauthorized access identify and data theft etc. submitted to DCP Crime on 25.2.2009. Kindly provide me the detail of action taken and also provide me the file noting of these complaints. A day to day progress till 14.12.2009 when the FIR was registered; (2) Kindly provide me the reason for delay in registering the FIR which was close to one year from the day first complaint 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000354 was filed; (3) Please provide me the reasons why was file moved to EOW from Crime Branch without FIR registration and information to the complainant; (4) What was the course of action taken by EOW on this complaint after receiving file from Crime Branch in 2009. Please provide details of the investigation; (5) Why was accused called over by EOW when FIR registration, arrest and seizure had to take place; (6) Kindly provide me the reason for registering the FIR only u/s 66(1) of the IT Act when evidence for Section 379, 468, 201 and 420 were already available at the time of FIR registration; (7) Why was accused not arrested under the appropriate sections and custodial interrogation of the accused not done in front of the complainant. Why has bail not been cancelled till now. Kindly provide me the reason for not arresting the accused under the appropriate sections till date, despite of all the evidences are against him and establish his involvement in the commission of offence; (8) Kindly provide me item wise details of the seizure along with the list of email IDs seized its contents and bank accounts seized. The date of seizure of each item. Why all the email IDs provided for investigation do not appear in chargesheet; (9) As per profile, company has been into existence since 2005 providing translation services. Bank accounts seized which was opened in 2009. What was the basis of seizing bank accounts. Where were payments going before October 2009. Why is income tax department missing from witnesses list; (10) How did a matriculate person with no background in languages or said business start this business. How has he claimed in his reply to have acquired knowledge of running this business from me when he is not know to me or have any link to me. How did he get into the same business as me. Where is the report of interrogation; (11) Why are details of data pertaining to me and my company reaching accused missing in the final report. What system have been sent to forensic lab. What is the reason for forensic lab taking more than 600 days to provide report. Why no access has been provided to me of any seized item till date despite of my request; (12) Kindly provide me the reason for not filing the FIR and Charge Sheet at adjudicating Authority and Cyber Crime Appellate Tribunal. Why was it filed in court of metropolitan magistrate when there are specialized courts established to handle crime of this nature; (13) Kindly provide me the reason how email IDs, systems and bank accounts of the accused on which investigation was based are still in working condition after the submission of the final report in the court; and (14) How has final report been filed in court with nothing proved when all the required evidences for theft, forgery, fraud, defamation and destruction of evidence is already available with Crime Branch at the time of submission of the report." The CPIO, PHQ vide letter dated 23.2.2011 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO Crime Branch. The CPIO Crime Branch vide letter dated 25.3.2011 informed the appellant that the information sought does not constitute "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first- appeal on 14.6.2011. Shri Ashok Chand, Deputy Commissioner of Police & FAA vide his order dated 27.4.2011 held that the information sought by the appellant is inter-related and needs better handling. Therefore, it needs to be re-examined. Moreover, it is also not clear as to whether the information sought in the custody of PIO/Crime or otherwise. PIO/Crime should either provide the information sought which is in his custody to the appellant or transfer appellant's application to other concerned appropriate authority under the RTI Act in case the same is not in his custody. The FAA directed the CPIO/Crime to re-examine the information sought by the appellant and do the needful within ten working days of the issue of order.

4. In compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO vide his letter dated 31.5.2011 provided information to the appellant on Point No. 1, 6 and 7 of the RTI application and transferred Point No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to CPIO, Cyber Crime Cell, EOW, Crime Branch and Point Nos. 8 to 14 to PIO, Rohini District Court, Delhi. The CPIO, EOW vide letter dated 3.6.2011 informed the appellant on Point No. 2 that the information sought does not constitute "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, enquiry was sent to DCP/Crime after initial enquiry on the request of complainant. On Point No. 4 and 5 the appellant was informed that the information sought does not constitute "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and Point No. 3 was not related to EOW. Shri S.D. Mishra, Addl. DCP & FAA, EOW vide his order dated 13.7.2011 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The PIO, Rohini District Court, Delhi vide his reply dated 26.5.2012 informed the appellant that information sought by her were in the form of opinion and does not form part of any existing record. Therefore as per Rule 7(viii) of Delhi District Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2008 information cannot be provided. Further, copy of judicial record can only be obtained from copying agency, Rohini Courts, as per existing CA rules.

6. During the hearing the appellant submits that the FIR in the matter was registered under incomplete sections and charge sheet filed in the District Court rather than Cyber Crime Appellate Tribunal. On the other hand the respondent submit that as per investigation conducted, offence u/s 66(c) of the IT Act was only made out. Therefore, the accused was arrested u/s 66 (c) of the IT Act. The accused was on police bail and charge sheet of the case has been filed in the Court of ACMM, Rohini Courts.

7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that more specific reply on Point No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 12, needs to be provided by the CPIO, Crime Branch. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO, Crime Branch to provide specific point-wise reply on Point No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and

12. The CPIO, Crime Branch would also provide a copy of the FSL report as sought by her at Point No. 11. The directions of the Commission are to be complied within two weeks of receipt of this order. On remaining points the reply of the CPIO, Crime Branch, EOW and District Court Rohini is upheld.

The matter is disposed of with the above directions.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000354 Address of the parties:

Ms. Rohini Arora, C-70, Raj Nagar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.

The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police & CPIO, Delhi Police, Crime, 2nd Floor, Police Station, Kamla Market Office Complex, Delhi.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police & FAA, Delhi Police, Crime, 10th Floor, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

The CPIO, Delhi Police, Cyber Crime Cell, EOW, Crime Branch, 2nd Floor, PTS Malviya Nagar, PS EOW, New Delhi-110016.

The First Appellate Authority, Delhi Police, Cyber Crime Cell, EOW, Crime Branch, 2nd Floor, PTS Malviya Nagar, PS EOW, New Delhi-110016.

The PIO, Office of the District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge/Incharge (North-West), Rohini District Court, Rohini, Delhi.