Central Information Commission
Mr. Dilip Kumar Thakur vs Cbi on 13 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000585 dated 27-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI)
Decision announced in hearing 12.8.2010
FACTS
By an application of 12-3-09 Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur of Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Inspector of Police, at present under suspension applied to the SP, CBI, AC-1, New Delhi seeking the following information:
"The applicant desires photocopies of the entire noting portion of the file in respect of case number RC/AC-I/2008-A-0002 registered against Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur, inspection CBI, ACB, New Delhi under section 7 of PC Act under provisions of R.T.I. Act of 2005."
To this he received a response from CPIO, Shri R.D. Kalia, SP, SPE, AC-1 dated 18-3-09 informing him as follows:
"The information asked is denied under Section 8(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Aggrieved Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur moved an appeal before Shri Rakesh Agrawal, DIG, CBI, AC-1 pleading as follows:
"Investigation of the aforesaid Regular Case is complete and chargesheet has been filed in the competent court. Thus there is no question of any kind of impediment to the process of investigation or apprehension. As regards the process of prosecution of offenders, the case is under trial in the court of CBI Special Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and providing photocopies of the notesheet of the crime file is not going to hamper the said court from disposing off it's duties in respect of a Police Report u/s 173Cr.PC.
It is presumed that the CPIO has denied this information on the ground that it may impede the process of prosecution. Such presumption is highly unjustified and against the spirit of RTI Act. The case is already under trial. The Constitution of India and the Criminal Procedure Code have provided that everyone would be provide sufficient and fair opportunity in any trial to defend. Courts have to dispose off chargesheets after fair trial without any bias. To sum up the applicant vehemently urges that 1 the stand of the CPIO is wrong and against the spirit of the RTI Act."
Appellate authority Shri Rakesh Agrawal in his order of 27-4-09 has found as follows:
"In this case charge sheet has been filed in the court of Spl. Judge, New Delhi on 30.12.2008 and all the documents which are relied upon by the prosecution has also been submitted in the court, copies of which are supplied to the accused by the court. The supply of any other documents/ records which have not been relied upon by the prosecution at the present stage of trial will indeed impede the process of prosecution and, therefore, the grounds taken by the CPIO is justified."
Appellant Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"The applicant humbly prays that suitable directions may please be issued to the CPIO/1st Appellate Authority to supply the requested information which is photocopies of the noting portion of crime file."
In response to our appeal notice we have received a letter from SP, CBI, AC-1 dated 6-7 August, 2010 attaching written arguments. In these arguments it has been contended as follows:
"The decision of the CBI to refuse the copies of the notings of the crime file of RC AC 1 2008 A 0002, which contains the supervisory notes, opinions of the legal officers, certain information which cannot be divulged to the accused or any other person, is duly supported by the Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sunita Devi Vs State of Bihar 2005(1) SCC 608 related to the supervisory notes in the criminal case, wherein it is held that the confidentiality of the supervisory notes shall be protected."
These written arguments also rely on the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01508 dated 17-6-2008.
The appeal was heard on 13-8-2010. The following are present. Appellant Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur Respondents Shri Ramnish, SP, CBI Shri V. Murugesan, SP, CBI 2 The respondents had not endorsed a copy of their reply to the appeal notice to appellant. Shri Ramnish, SP then therefore read out the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar. This decision rules that "the supervision notes can in no count be called". Appellant Shri Dilip Kumar Thakur, on the other hand, submitted that what he was seeking was not supervisory note but only a copy of FR-1.
DECISION NOTICE What appellant has clearly asked for in his application is "the entire noting portion of the file". Clearly, the Supreme Court ruling cited by respondent is directly applicable to file noting. Nevertheless, even if we were to agree to allow appellant to modify the request to an application for a copy only of FR-1, this Commission has already decided in a separate decision notice that FR-1 being a summary of case diaries which are in turn excluded from disclosure as per Sec 172 (3) of the CrPC, as follows:
"(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries1, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the court; but, if they, are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply."
In light of this the FR-1 can be deemed to be information, disclosure of which will impede the prosecution and therefore exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1) (h).
On the other hand although we find that at the a level second appeal respondents have taken the trouble to explain the reasons for recourse to Section 8 (1) (h), this was not the case at the level of the CPIO. Since we have now upheld the order of the Appellate Authority and there is no information to disclose, no further action is required in this regard except that CPIO will take note that in decisions where it is decided to refuse disclosure as exempt u/s 8 (1) (h), reasons for the same have to be provided in 1 Underlined by us for reference 3 accordance with rulings of the High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner in WP No. 3114/2007 decided by Hon'ble Ravinder Bhat J. With these observations this appeal is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 13-8-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 13-8-2010 4