Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Gyanendra Singh vs Delhi Police on 28 January, 2021

                                के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/154080

Shri Gyanendra Singh                                         ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Delhi Police


Date of Hearing                      :    27.01.2021
Date of Decision                     :    28.01.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   04.04.2018
PIO replied on                        :   03.05.2018
First Appeal filed on                 :   01.06.2018
First Appellate Order on              :   11.07.2018
2ndAppeal/complaintreceived on        :   31.08.2018

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated04.04.2018 seeking information on the following 03 points related to FIR No. 883/14/ u/s 380/454 IPC filed before PS New Ashok Nagar:-

1. Certified copy of further progress of the investigation and recovery of property stolen if any.

2. Certified copy of details of arrest of the criminals if any.

3. Certified copy of details of property from the criminal if any.

The PIO, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, East District vide letter dated 03.05.2018 replied as under:-

1. All efforts have been made but no case property has been recovered.

2. No accused has been arrested.

3. After investigation, the case FIR No. 0883/2014 U/s 380/454 IPC PS N A Nagar has been sent as untraced on 20.11.2015.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2018. The FAA& DCP, East District vide order dated 11.07.2018 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrievedand dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19 hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing.

The Respondent is represented by Shri Jitender Patel, ACP and Shri Bijender Singh, SI through video conference.The Respondent stated that point wise information was provided to the Appellant. Explaining that it was a burglary case, the Respondent stated that despite their best efforts, no recovery was made in the matterhence no arrests were carried out. During the hearing, the Respondent also handed over to the Commission, a report dated 20.11.2015 pertaining to untraceable articles Decision:

After perusal of the records and considering the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that no further adjudication is required in this matter.

With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2