Central Information Commission
P C Bangaria vs Cbi on 23 September, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/126454/SD
P C Bangaria ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch,
Plot No. 29 to 50,
JDA Scheme No. 50,
Vijay Nagar,
Jabalpur - 482001 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 14/10/2017
CPIO replied on : 07/11/2017
First appeal filed on : 03/01/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2018
Second Appeal dated : 19/04/2018
Date of Hearing : 27/08/2019
Date of Decision : 23/09/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought certified copies of all documents pertaining to two cases registered at CBI, Jabalpur vide case nos. RC0092011A0003 and RC0092011A0005. He further stated that this information was also sought in earlier CIC case vide File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000529 & 566 wherein it was held that no relief can be ordered till the stay is vacated in the matter of CPIO, CBI v/s.1
C.J. Karira vide W.P.(C) 7439/2012 before the Delhi High Court and a final decision is pronounced in the matter.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: P.K. Pandey, SP & CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Jabalpur present through VC.
Appellant stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is pertaining to a case filed against the Appellant himself on an allegation of rape. He further stated that out of the two averred RC cases; one case i.e., RC0092011A0003 pertaining to allegation of rape has been disposed of in which he has been convicted. He furthermore submitted that a coordinate bench of the Commission heard a similar matter vide File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/131333 decided on 25.09.2018 wherein the Respondent was directed to provide information to the Appellant.
CPIO submitted that on 07.11.2017 Appellant was informed that the information sought in the instant RTI Application was examined regarding applicability of exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 7439/2012, CPIO, CBI vs. C.J. Karira. He further submitted that the Appellant was already conveyed vide their letter dated 30.11.2012 claiming exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. He furthermore clarified that the case no. RC0092011A0003 pertained to allegation of bribe and not allegation of rape as claimed by the Appellant during hearing, in which the Appellant was convicted and served 4 years of imprisonment. He added that the Appellant had filed a petition to release him on bail, which the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to enlarge.
CPIO also submitted that the investigation in case no. RC0092011A0003 was concluded on 29.07.2011 whereas in case no. RC0092011A0005 (pertaining to disproportionate assets), investigation was concluded on 27.07.2012 but the trial is yet to be completed and all the relevant documents in the latter case has been 2 File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/126454/SD submitted in the jurisdictional Court. CPIO furthermore added that providing copies to the Accused are even exempt under relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Appellant interjected to state that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides all the other Acts and Rules for the time being in force. He further stated that he is seeking the copies of sanction orders under Section 161 and 163 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He further pointed out that reply of the CPIO, CBI (ACB), Jabalpur vide letter dated 02.12.2017 distinctively states that his earlier RTI Application dated 10.10.2012 was also disposed of by the then CPIO, CBI (ACB), Jabalpur seeking exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. He added that the CPIO in the averred reply dated 02.12.2017 has emphatically relied upon the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 07.09.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7439/2012, CPIO, CBI vs. C.J. Karira.
Commission enquired from the Appellant that the reply dated 02.12.2017 was not available in its records and advised to send a copy of the same through email by the end of the day, for which the Appellant acceded.
Decision:
Commission received email of the Appellant and on the basis of the submission of both parties during hearing, the moot question that arise for adjudication is whether the information sought in the RTI Application concerns allegations of corruption or not. Commission observes that the contention of the Appellant that the subject matter of case no. RC0092011A0003 pertained to allegations of rape whereas case no. RC0092011A0005 pertained to allegations of corruption. CPIO has rather harped on the operative part of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 07.09.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7439/2012, CPIO, CBI vs. C.J. Karira, wherein the Court held in para no. 11:
"... Although, it would not be open for the petitioner to claim that information relating to allegations of corruption in other organization is exempt from disclosure however, the petitioner would be at liberty to examine whether the information sought is exempt under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the Act."
Commission further observes that the CPIO is dwelling into the merits of the investigation conducted into the averred RC cases and by also relying upon the 3 provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which are irrelevant to the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act. Regard shall be had of Section 22 of the RTI Act, which provides that:
"...The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
As regards the question of applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act is concerned, Commission observes that the Appellant has adequately established the allegation of corruption subsisting in the matter in connection with case no.RC0092011A0003 and RC0092011A0005.
CPIO's contention does not negate the fact that there were allegations of corruption which were investigated into. Besides, the fact that Appellant eventually served imprisonment for a period of 4 years further evinces the allegation of corruption. Moreover, it is only reasonable to accept the allegations of corruption in the matter given the fact that it pertained to Appellant's own case. The aspect of larger public interest or the conclusiveness of the preliminary enquiry does not have any bearing on the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act as no such contingencies are inserted in the said provision.
Commission holds beyond any reasonable doubt that the information sought in the RTI Application pertains to allegations of corruption. At this juncture, Commission finds this pressing need to highlight the paradox evident in claiming the exemption of Section 24(1) of RTI Act by the anti-corruption branch of CBI. In other words, given the fact that the cases referred to/investigated/enquired by the anti-corruption branch of CBI invariably pertain to allegations of corruption only; CBI and the Commission cannot be oblivious to the imperativeness of applying a judicious rationale while assessing the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act is such cases pertaining to the anti-corruption branch.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, Commission rejects the exclusion claimed by CPIO under Section 24 of RTI Act.
CPIO is hereby directed to provide available and relevant information sought in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the 4 File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/126454/SD date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
5