Central Information Commission
Ravindra Mohan vs Cbi on 11 April, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2019/133742
Ravindra Mohan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
RTI Cell, Anti Corruption Branch, 5-B,
CBI HQ Building, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/04/2021
Date of Decision : 08/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/03/2019
CPIO replied on : 24/04/2019
First appeal filed on : 07/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 14/05/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/07/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2019 seeking information regarding corruption case filed against him in the year 2010. In this regard, he sought for the following information:
(i) "Malkhana/Godown Register, for the year 2009 & 2010.(Storing Case Property).
(ii) Case Property/Malkhana Movement Register, for the year 2009 & 2010. (Showing Movement of case property).
(iii) Case Diary & Supplementary Case Diary of his case.
(iv) Applicant's case file, maintained by CBI, including Note sheets."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 24.04.2019 stating that information cannot be provided as per the section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.05.2019. FAA's order dated 14.05.2019 directed the CPIO to provide information as sought by the applicant if the same is not exempted under any other provision of RTI Act, 2005.
In compliance with FAA's order, CPIO on 30.05.2019 denied the information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Ranjeet Kr. DSP & CPIO, CBI ACB present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that the information sought for in the RTI Application pertains to allegations of corruption based on the corruption case booked against him by the Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI. He further stated that the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not appropriate as the investigation was long over and in fact the Trial Court has already held him as guilty and convicted him. He furthermore stated that as per laid down rule of law, 2 the CPIO has not even been able to justify the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been already provided with the documents which the CBI had relied upon during the trial and based on which the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 1 year in the year 2014. He further submitted that the other documents which were not relied upon by the CBI cannot be said to be pertaining to allegations of corruption. He further pointed out that the similar request for information of the Appellant was disposed of by the Commission by holding the view that the case does not pertain to allegations of corruption vide File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2017/111119 on 29.06.2018. He furthermore submitted that since an Appeal of the CBI and that of the Appellant against the judgment of the Trial Court is pending as on date, the information sought for cannot be provided and if the Appellant so desires, he can ask for these documents from the Court. He also argued that the Malkhana Register sought for the period of 2009 & 2010 contains internal records of CBI related to many other cases which cannot be disclosed to the Appellant. Similarly, the Case Diary sought for by the Appellant cannot be provided as per Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The Appellant interjected to state that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides the provisions of Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Decision The Commission at the outset summarily rejects the submissions of the CPIO against the applicability of the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act as the FAA had categorically held that the RTI Application pertained to allegations of corruption. For the said reason, the earlier order of the Commission dated 29.06.2018 relied upon by the CPIO is also deemed irrelevant. Moreover, the Commission does not find any reason to depart from the view taken by the FAA, and pertinently so, the sole argument of the CPIO in this context is that the documents which the CBI did not rely upon during the investigation or trial cannot be deemed to be pertaining to allegations of corruption is a rather bizarre supposition as the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act does not carve out any such further exemption. In other words, once it is established that the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption, the CPIO cannot go about bifurcating the documents available on the subject.3
Similarly, the CPIO failed to justify the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, rather he feebly submitted that the Appeal against the Trial Court order is pending. As for the claim of the applicability of Section 172(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 for denying the Case Diary is concerned, concededly Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides the inconsistent provision of the CrPC. Moreover, the attention of the CPIO is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Police vs. D.K Sharma [W.P.(C) 12428/2009] wherein the Court upheld a decision of CIC allowing disclosure of police case dairy in similar circumstances. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"6....The right of an applicant to seek such information pertaining to his own criminal case, after the conclusion of the trial, by taking recourse of the RTI Act, cannot be said to be barred by any provision of the CrPC." [Emphasis Supplied] Clearly, in the instant case, the conclusion of the trial is well established and therefore denial of the information is not appropriate.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the available and relevant information as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant. In doing so, if the available documents relevant to points no. (i), (ii) &
(iii) of the RTI Application contain information regarding cases of third parties, disclosure of which will be exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to severe the records accordingly and provide the information pertaining to the Appellant's case only. This will be done is consonance with the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act. Further, the available information should also be provided for point no.(iv) of the RTI Application to the Appellant.
The aforesaid information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5