Central Information Commission
Priya Ranjan Srivastva vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office on 4 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SFIVO/C/2017/141327
Priya Ranjan Srivastava ... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Serious Fraud ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Investigation Office, M/o
Corporate Affairs, New
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 04.02.2017 FA : 24.02.2017 Complaint : 12.06.2017
CPIO : 17.02.2017
FAO : No Order Hearing : 23.08.2018
27.03.2017
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), New Delhi seeking Page 1 of 4 information on three points pertaining to Fraud Monitoring Report (FMR) No. HDFC1601-0070 dated 11.03.2016 of HDFC Bank to the Reserve Bank of India regarding fraud of Rs. 1.87 crore, including, inter-alia, (i) a copy of the FMR submitted to SFIO by HDFC Bank, and (ii) whether SFIO has sought any clarification on the report- if so, a copy thereof.
2. The complainant filed a second complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act stating that information which would impede the process of invesigation or apprehension or prosection of offenders is exempt from disclosure. The complainant stated that although the SFIO had not received any Fraud Report from the bank, it falsely claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The complainant also stated that the SFIO either provides wrong/false information or does not provide any information. The complainant requested the Commission to take cognizance of this act and instruct the public authority as it deemed fit.
Hearing:
3. The complainant, Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastava attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri Kundan Lal, Dy. Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that as per RBI guidelines in all fraud case of above Rs. 1.00 crore, the bank has to report the matter to the SFIO as well as the Police in the format of FMR. The RBI in reply to an RTI had informed that HDFC bank had reported a fraud of Rs. 1.87 crores vide FMR dated 11.03.2016. In view Page 2 of 4 of this, he had requested the SFIO to provide a copy of the FMR filed by HDFC bank. However, he was informed that the requisite information cannot be provided as investigation in the matter was pending and disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, in response to another RTI application dated 01.03.2017, the SFIO informed that no such FMR has been received. Hence, the reply provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 04.02.2017 is incorrect.
5. The respondent submitted that no FMR was received in the SFIO as informed to the complainant vide letter dated 27.03.2017. The respondent, however, could not explain as to why the complainant was informed that the information sought for is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that since the SFIO had not received any FMR from the bank, the SFIO could not have under taken any investigation in the matter. Yet, the respondent claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, the respondent had knowingly furnished incorrect and misleading information to the complainant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri Kundan Lal, Dy. Director, CPIO, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi for Page 3 of 4 explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 30.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
2. Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastava, Page 4 of 4