Central Information Commission
Mr. M A Gopal Manager vs Cbi on 26 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000561 dated 13-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri M.A. Gopal
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation, (CBI)
Appeal heard 25.8.'10
Decision announced 26.8.10
FACTS
By an application of 10-10-08 Shri M.A. Gopal, Manager, Regional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Bengaluru applied to the SP, ACB, CBI seeking the following information:
"Re: Case No. 185 and 186/2003 before Special Court CBI Bangalore.
This case has been filed against me. I request you to send me the following documents under the RTI Act.
1. Draft Sanction sent to CVO united India Insurance Co Ltd., Chennai, listing charges against me.
2. Documents enclosed along with the above draft.
3. SP's report."
To this he received a response from Shri Narasimha Komar, SP, CBI, ACB dated 30-10-08 informing him as follows:
"Charge sheet has been filed in RC.04/2002BLR before the Hon'ble XXIst Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore and the same is pending for trial. The disclosure of the information will adversely affect the prosecution, hence, the same is denied u/s 8)(h) of RTI Act 2005."
Aggrieved with this response Shri M.A. Gopal moved an appeal before DIG, Anti Corruption Region, Hyderabad with the following plea:
"Since the draft sanction order accuses me and A2 of criminal conspiracy on the basis of the SP report and enclosed documents, and since the charges have not been framed. We request you to kindly give me the SP report and documents to enable me to defend myself. In this connection we refer to CIC Delhi to Complaint No.-CIC/WB/A/2006/00964 dated 23-11-06 Dhirendra Krishna Vs CBI were it has been accepted by Sri D.C.JAIN DIG to with draw exemption from disclosure sought u/s 8,1 (h) where the Chief Information Commissioner has ruled that Sri Krishna may obtain any documents and records from CBI.1
Please therefore provide me a copy of the SP report with documents send along with the draft sanction to CVO United India Chennai."
Upon this Shri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, DIG, Hyderabad in his letter of 18-11-08 has upheld the ruling of CPIO and while repeating the grounds for refusal of the information has also cited the following decision of the Central Information Commission:
"In this connection a copy of decision taken by the Central Information Commission dated 16.2.2006 in an appeal filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi seeking a copy of SP's Report wherein the Commission has upheld the decision of he Appellate Authority in denying the disclosure of the same."
Shri M.A. Gopal has then moved an appeal before us with the following prayer:
"The SPs report with enclosure and draft sanction sent to CVO United India, Chennai."
This has been moved on the following grounds:
"The above mentioned documents are essential for my defence in the special Court for CBI cases and there is no condition under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act which is in any way affected by the production of the documents."
This appeal was followed by a reminder on 31-8-09. The appeal came up for hearing by video-conferencing. Following are present:
Appellant: at NIC Studio, Bengaluru Shri M.A. Gopal Respondents (At NIC Studio, Hyderabad) Shri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, DIG, CBI (At NIC Studio, Bengaluru) Shri Hitendra, SP, CBI.
Shri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, DIG, CBI, Hyderabad submitted that the case is now charge sheeted and pending hearing. A copy of the charge sheet has been provided to appellant together with draft sanction order sent to CVO. While agreeing that he had received the response to his first question appellant Shri M.A. Gopal submitted that what he needed now were the documents listed at serial No. 2 and 3 of his request.2
To this Shri Lakshmi Narayana responded by submitting that the entire discussion on the requirements for prosecution and the line to be taken by the CBI during the prosecution has been discussed in the documents attached with the CVO report and in the SP's report. Disclosure of this information will certainly impede the prosecution. On the other hand such of the attachments with the sanction, which will not pose such an impediment, have already been supplied to the court and to the appellant Shri M.A. Gopal. In this case Shri Lakshmi Narayana, DIG, CBI cited the orders of this Commission in appeal Nos. CIC/LS/A/2009/000685 decided on 26-11-2009 and CIC/SM/A/2009/000399 decided on 4-12-2009.
DECISION NOTICE In CIC/LS/A/2009/000685; Sunil Gupta vs. DDA the Commission decided as follows:
The present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.11.2006 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 16712/2006 (Surender Pal Singh Vs UOI and Ors). The appellant had allegedly accepted a bribe of Rs. three lacs from a party and when the prosecution was mid-stream, he had sought the following documents: -
"(i) Note Sheet to Page 1 to page 55;
(ii) Correspondence to and from the above file with CBI;
(iii) Correspondence to and from the above file with C.V.C; &
(iv) Correspondence to and from the above file with Department of vigilance CBEC."
This information was denied to him by the CPIO and Appellate Authority and, ultimately, the matter reached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The finding of the court is extracted below: -
The Central Information Commission and the Appellate Authority and CPIO have held that the prosecution of the offender is pending before the Special Judge. If the prosecution of the offender is pending and not yet complete the information which is sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender, cannot be faulted. The empharic argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation is already over as the charge sheet has already over as the charge sheet has already been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation is not correct. Exemption from disclosure of information can be claimed for any information which may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.3
Since the charge sheet has been filed the process of investigation has been completed but the petitioner cannot contend that there is no apprehension with the respondent that the information sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender. Whether the respondents have apprehension or not is to be decided by the respondents in the present facts and circumstances. The apprehension of the respondents is not without any basis. In any case the prosecution of the offender is pending. Since prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been completed, it cannot be inferred that divulgence of information will not impede the prosecution of the offender. The respondents, therefore, are justified in claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) from disclosure of information sought by the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation has been completed as charge sheet has already been filed cannot be accepted and is contrary to all the circumstances under which exemption can be claimed under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
The decision to decline the request of the petitioner for the information regarding sanction of his prosecution which may impede the prosecution of offender cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances. There is no error or illegality in the orders passed by the respondents seeking exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 nor any procedural unreasonableness can be inferred.
4. The ratio of the above cited judgment squarely applies in the factual matrix of the present case. Admittedly, the matter is under prosecution and the possibility of the prosecution being impeded in the eventuality of disclosure of the requested information can not be discounted. Hence, relying on the authority cited above, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed."
Similarly in CIC/SM/A/2009/000399-LS; Prem Singh vs. CGDA this Commission has, relying on the same ruling of the Delhi High Court, decided as below:
Needless to say, the ratio of the above cited judgment squarely applies in the factual matrix of the present case. As the matter is under prosecution, the possibility of the prosecution being impeded in the eventuality of disclosure of requested information cannot be discounted. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
For the same reasons, we find no grounds for intervening in this matter. If appellant feels that the records sought are material to his defence, 4 he is at liberty to request these through the trial court. In this case however, they will qualify for exemption u/s 8 (1) (h). The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced in open chambers on this twenty-sixth day of August 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26-8-2010 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 26-8-2010 5