Central Information Commission
Mr.Sridhar Srinivasan vs Directorate Of Forensic Science on 31 October, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No.305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in Tel No:26167931
Case No: CIC/SS/A/2012/000106
31 October, 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sridhar Srinivasan
Name of Respondents : Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Hyderabad
Date of Hearing : 31.10.2013
ORDER
Shri Sridhar Srinivasan hereinafter called the Appellant has filed the present appeal dated 04.08.2011 before the Commission against the Respondent namely Central Reserve Police Force. The matter was earlier fixed for hearing on 30.04.2012 but was adjourned on account of the nonappearance of the Respondent. In today's hearing the Appellant was not present whereas from the Respondent side Shri K.P Satapathy (Assistant Director) Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad was present.
2. The Appellant through the RTI application dated 10.12.2010 sought information as follows: "Please provide a copy of the report or reports of the Forensic Analysis of Articles concerning C.R. No:10 of 2007 of AntiTerrorism Squad Police station, Mumbai, which were sent for examination to CFSL, Hyderabad vide letter O.W No:1634/DCP/2007 dated 10.09.2007 of DCP A.R Dumbare, ATS, Mumbai and letter O.W No: 551/ACP/KNS/2007 dated 10.09.2007 of ACP K.N Shengal, ATS Mumbai and received on 11.09.2007 by the Incharge Computer Forensic Unit, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad vide letter No:13/CFSL (H)/EE/2007/13685 dated 11.09.2007".
3. CPIO vide letter no: 1(98)/CFSL (H)/2010/5330 dated 4.01.2011 replied to the Appellant, informing him that the request of the Appellant cannot be accepted to since it is exempt under provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO sent a very comprehensive reply to the Appellant, informing the Appellant that the opinion in the case FIR No: 10/2007 of P.S. ATS Police Station, Mumbai had already been sent to the forwarding authority i.e. Dy. Commissioner of Police, ATS Mumbai on 10.09.2009. The CPIO explained that a copy of this report cannot be disclosed as it pertains to a criminal investigation. Whenever a crime investigating agency sends the exhibits of crime case to CFSL, Hyderabad for Scientific examination and report of the results of such examination, confidentiality is "inherently implicit" and that all such information must be protected from disclosure to provide the confidence necessary to law enforcement co operation. Disclosure of such information would compromise the very edifice of trust and confidentiality built over the years between CFSL, Hyderabad and the crime investigating agencies in the country. Nothing can ne more dangerous assault on this relationship, than allowing access to the very documents which contain the material which could form the basis for action against violation of law. Secondly, the records under question detail the names of the officers of this laboratory who have handled or examined these cases after their receipt in this laboratory. These officers are likely to depose expert evidence before the courts of law during the process of trial of the cases. The defendants will have adequate opportunity to cross examine such officers. Making the details in the documents and notings available to the applicant at this stage would lead to the identification of these officers and hence expose these experts to uncalled for pressure and conceivably subject them to harassment and annoyance ij conduct of his official duties and in their private life which could impede their readiness to support the criminal justice system in the cases.
4. Being aggrieves with reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a first Appeal dated 11.02.2011 before the FAA. The first Appeal was disposed off by the FAA vide his order dated 3.05.2011. The FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO.
5. Not satisfied with the FAO, the Appellant has filed a present appeal before the Commission in which he states that the information has wrongly been denied to him by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. During hearing before the Commission, the CPIO submits that the investigating agencies (Police, CBI, NIA, NCB etc.) are forwarding the crime cases to the laboratory for examination of crime exhibits and CFSL extending scientific aid in the form of examination of reports to do justice in the areas of criminal justice system. As such, the original custodian of the crime exhibits, forwarded to CFSL for examination, is the forwarding authority in this case Dy. Commissioner of Police, anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai. Therefore, it is the for the Dy. Commissioner of Police, anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai to decide whether or not the report should be provided under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant , being custodian of the information. CPIO also submits that the Appellant is an under trial prisoner who is lodged in the Central Jail, Nagpur and the disclosure of the requisite information to the Appellant could impede the process of investigation and therefore cannot be provided to the Appellant under the provisions of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. Submission heard and documents on file perused. The Commission observes that the Appellant through his RTI application sought a copy of the Forensic Analysis report of exhibits concerning FIR. No: 10 of 2007 of the AntiTerrorism Squad Police station, Mumbai sent for examination to CFSL, Hyderabad in relation to the terrorist case in which the appellant is an accused. The Commission agrees with the submission of the CPIO that the original custodian of the crime exhibits, forwarded to CFSL for examination, is the forwarding authority in this case, Dy. Commissioner of Police, anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai. Therefore, it is the for the Dy. Commissioner of Police, anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai to decide whether or not the report should be provided under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant, being the custodian of information. The CPIO, CFSL is therefore directed to transfer the RTI application to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai under the provisions of section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing a reply directly to the Appellant.
8. The Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(D.C Singh) Deputy Secretary To:
1. Shri K.D Rao, (ADVOCATE) For Appellant, C/o Deepak Kumar Singh, B185, Sector14, NOIDA (U.P)201301
2. The Director & CPIO, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, P.O. Amberpet, Ramanthpur, HYDERABAD - 500013
3. The Chief Forensic Scientist & FAA, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory, 8th Floor, Block No9, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003