Central Information Commission
Mohit Mittal vs Delhi Police on 5 August, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628055
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628062
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628143
Shri Mohit Mittal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police (I) ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Dist. NW, Ashok Vihar, Delhi
Date of Hearing : 30.07.2020
Date of Decision : 05.08.2020
Through: Shri Ajay Kumar,
PIO/ACP-Model Town present
Through audio conference
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
628055 14.04.2018 24.04.2018 25.04.2018 Nil
628062 12.04.2018 24.04.2018 25.05.2018 Nil
628143 04.03.2018 04.04.2018 13.04.2018 04.05.2018
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628055
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.04.2018 seeking information on
the following 3 points pertaining to an FIR no. 0311/17 registered at Model
Town Police station under life and liberty clause:
1. Provide the copy of istridhan list.
2. Provide the copy of receipt/bills received in support of list provided by
complainant.
3. Provide any other supporting documents, financial statement, income statement
etc. received in support of list provided by complainant.
[Queries are verbatim]
PIO/Addl. DCP-(I), North-West Distt., Delhi vide letter dated 24.04.2018 denied
information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 5
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal
dated 25.04.2018 which was not adjudicated. Therefore, Appellant approached
the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received by the Appellant wherein he has cited orders/judgments of the Commission and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi respectively in support of his arguments.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Respondent is represented by Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO/ACP-Model Town through audio conference. He submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted to the Rohini Court on 10.01.2020. He further submitted that preliminary investigation is completed and no hearings have been conducted by the Hon'ble Court in the said case due to the pandemic, COVID-19.
Appellant interjected to state that the Respondent has provided the stridhan list during the First Appeal stage. He further stated that remaining information sought at point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application was not provided. He added that there is a circular issued by the Police with regard to verification of receipts/bills, income statement etc. which is a pre-requisite for conducting the investigation.
In response to the Appellant's question, PIO explained that the verification process starts once the investigation commences and the bills are collected/seized through seizure memo, thereafter, it is verified by the concerned authority. Further, all the copies of the bills/receipts, assets details etc. belonged to Appellant's wife and since the Respondent had already begun the investigation, divulging any information at that point in time would have hampered the process of the investigation.
Appellant intervened and referred to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 wherein the Police has to provide a copy of the documents to the accused.
In response to the Appellant's intervention, PIO clarified that a copy of the charge-sheet is provided to the accused as ordered by the Court i.e., through the prosecution. Upon being asked as to whether the Police can provide a copy of charge-sheet to the applicant/accused under the RTI Act, PIO explained that the charge-sheet cannot be provided to the applicant/accused under the RTI Act and the same will be provided by the prosecution in consonance with the relevant laws/procedures. He added that as per the law, the jurisdictional court while taking cognizance of the offence; passes an order to supply a copy of the charge-sheet to the accused. Further, the jurisdictional court i.e., Rohini Court Page 2 of 5 has not taken cognizance of the offence in the case and due to the pandemic, the progress in the aforesaid Court case is stalled.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Respondent has provided a copy of the stridhan list to the Appellant during the First Appeal stage and the remaining information has been denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Further, it is noted that a case/matter is pending adjudication before the Rohini Court.
Notwithstanding the above, the Appellant has also raised an issue by referring to Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in seeking a copy of the charge-sheet. It is relevant to mention herein that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to stridhan list, copy of receipts/bills in support of the list etc. and the Appellant has not mentioned charge-sheet in the RTI Application. Moreover, it has been clearly explained by the PIO that the copy of the charge-sheet will be provided to the accused by the Court through the prosecution and since the Hon'ble Court has not taken cognizance of the offence against the Appellant, the Commission is not in a position to direct the Respondent to provide a copy of the charge-sheet. However, since the preliminary investigation has been completed, the PIO is directed to provide information on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application to the Appellant as available in their records. In the event, if no information is available, the same may be categorically intimated to the Appellant, in writing.
A compliance report shall be submitted to the Commission by the respondent by 31.08.2020.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628062 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.04.2018 seeking information on the following 2 points pertaining to an FIR no. 0311/17 registered at Model Town Police station under life and liberty clause:
1. Kindly confirm that police has been able to verify all the articles specified by the complainant in the Annexures to FIR. Kindly reply in yes or no only.
2. Kindly confirm, is police able to establish the genuineness as per the legal requirement, of all the articles specified by the complainant in the Annexures to FIR. Kindly reply in yes or no only.
[Queries are verbatim] PIO/Addl. DCP (I), vide letter dated 24.04.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by I/C Record Branch/NWD which states: "S.O. no. 330/2008, 281/2008 and Circular no. 07/2007 and Order no. 459-66/P.Sec./Addl. C.P/CAW dated 29.03.2007".
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2018 which was not adjudicated. Therefore, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 5Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received by the Appellant wherein he has cited orders/judgments of the Commission and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi respectively in support of his arguments.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he has not sought any document in the RTI Application, instead, he wants a reply from the PIO stating YES or NO to the query posed in the RTI application.
Respondent is represented by Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO/ACP-Model Town through audio conference. He submitted that that they have verified all the articles specified by the Complainant in the Annexures to FIR. He further submitted that the orders of the Commission will be abided with, if any in the matter.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission directs the PIO to provide a revised reply, specifically addressing the queries raised in the instant RTI application, to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission by 31.08.2020, failing which action will be initiated against the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/628143 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.03.2018 seeking the following information pertaining to an FIR no. 0311/17 registered at Model Town Police station under life and liberty clause:
1. Kindly provide certified copy of all statements in record for FIR No. 311/17, which has details about the incidents involving Mohit Mittal or any of his family members. Kindly note a. Request is only for statements and not for any evidence or any documentary material.
b. Request is only for incidents involving Mohit Mittal or his parents or any other family member.
c. Request is for details of incidents which applicant (Mohit Mittal) should already be aware of, so providing them is not going to be hindrance to investigation process, hence can't be denied u/s 8(1)(h) or any other section of RTI Act.
[Queries are verbatim] PIO/Addl. DCP (I), North-West Distt., Delhi vide letter dated 04.04.2018 denied information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 5Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 13.04.2018. FAA vide letter dated 04.05.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received by the Appellant wherein he has cited orders/judgments of the Commission and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi respectively in support of his arguments.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further stated that he was in judicial custody for a week and later on released on bail by the Court during the pendency of the Court case. He requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide information as sought in the instant RTI Application since the preliminary investigation has been concluded.
Respondent is represented by Shri Ajay Kumar, PIO/ACP-Model Town through audio conference. He submitted that since the investigation was in progress during the said period, Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was invoked. He further submitted that he will abide by the orders of the Commission, if any in the matter.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings of the case, Commission observes that a suitable reply has been provided to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application. However, it is noted that preliminary investigation in the instant case has been concluded by the Respondent. Therefore, the PIO is directed to provide a revised and specific reply as available in the records to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission before 31.08.2020, failing which action will be initiated against the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the three Second Appeals are disposed off.
वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा)
Y. K. Sinha (वाई िस हा
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514
Page 5 of 5