Central Information Commission
Shri N. K. Sethi vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 10 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00710 dated 18.3.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri N. K. Sethi
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced: 10.9.2009
Facts:
By a request of 22.5.06 Shri N. K. Sethi of Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi applied to CPIO Shri S. N. Saxena, SP, CBI ACB seeking the following information:
"a) With respect of the Charge Sheet in ACB, CBI, Mumbai's RC/BA I/2003/0042, submitted in Special Case No. 79/2004 dated 4.9.2004 necessary permissions obtained by CBI/ Complainant for purportedly recording conversations on telephone (as mentioned in the charge sheet) from the Home Secretary under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the Rules made there under, amended up to the relevant date (Ref the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 19th February 1999) Ministry of Communications (Department of Telecommunications) Notification dated 16th February 1999 GSR 123 "(E).
b) Attested copies of all approvals of Home Secretary as per law for following documents/ transcriptions of telephonic conversations attached in the List of Documents' in the Charge Sheet, given to the undersigned by ACB, Mumbai office on 10.12.2004, may be kindly given to me:-
i. Statement of Shri Siddhartha Sen, Managing Director of M/s Sidhartha Logistics Company Pvt. Ltd., with respect to the alleged tele-conversations of 30.9.2003 & 1.10.2003 (in reference to S. No. 1 of the list of documents) and transcription Panchnamas of 3.11.2003, 4.11.2003, 6.11.2003, 7.11.2003, 8.11.2003 made in ACB, CBI office, Mumbai.
ii. Statement of Shri Nischal Padhya (page 105) that he decided to record conversations required and also for the alleged tele-conversations mentioned in the Transcription Panchnamas dated 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th November, 2003.
1iii. For the alleged tele-conversations recording of 1.10.2003 mentioned in the Panchnama (Document D-5 in the Charge Sheet) and those in transcription Panchnama dated 12.1.2004.
iv. For the alleged tele-conversations mentioned in the Transcription Panchnamas dated 3.11.2003 4.11.2003, 5.11.2003 for the so called pre and post trap conversations (Document D-9 of Charge Sheet)."
To this Shri N. K. Sethi received a refusal on 29.9.06 u/s 8(1) (g) & (h) of the RTI Act. On this basis Shri Sethi moved am appeal before us on 14.11.06 which was heard on 15.2.08 through video conference and the following orders passed:
"He is advised to take recourse to section 19 (1) and move a first appeal before the 1st appellate authority, CBI laying down therein his objections to the response provided by SP, CBI. Because the matter has been unduly long the 1st appellate authority, DIG, CBI is advised to dispose of such first appeal within 15 working days of the date of receipt of the first appeal/."
Consequently through his appeal of 15.2.08 addressed to Shri Rahul Sharma, IPS, DIG, CBI ACB, appellant Shri Sethi has pleaded as follows:
"I have been wrongly denied information by citing provisions of section 8 (1) (g) and Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. I wish to draw your kind attention to numerous decisions of the Central Information Commission which clarify that when CBI has already completed the investigation and charge sheet has been filed, all information can be given. Moreover, in many similar CBI cases as mine, Ministry of Home Affairs/ CBI has already given the information sought. It has also been clarified in CIC's decisions that there is no clause in the RTI Act which exempts information form disclosure when it is sub-judice. I am reproducing extracts of various decision of Central Information Commission which support my claim. Self attested photocopies of the decisions are also being attached."
In her order of 7.3.08 Ms. Sonali Mishra, DIG CBI Mumbai Region has responded as follows:
"2. With reference to the information sought at Para (a), CBI, ACB, Mumbai has not intercepted any telephonic conversation which would attract the provisions of the Indian 2 Telegraph Act, 1885 and rules made their under, hence no permission was acquired by CBI for the interception. Hence with reference to this information CBI, ACB Mumbai has no letter of permission from the appropriate authority.
3. The reply to information asked by you at para b (i) (ii) (iii) &
(iv) is same as stated above at para (2).
4. The list of documents mentioned in the appeal were already supplied u/s 207 Cr.PC. However, if the same are again required by you, the same would be provided on payment of requisite fee (Rs. 2/- per page). The requirements in this regard may be informed in written to the CPIO."
In his prayer before us in second appeal Shri Sethi has pleaded as follows:
"7. The information supplied is evasive as they have failed to support the statement in para 2 of the reply dated 7.3.2008 from DIG, CBI (ACB), Mumbai with reference to the information sought at para (A), CBI, ACB, Mumbai has not intercepted any telephonic conversation which would attract the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and rules made their under, hence no permission was acquired by CBI for the interception. Hence with reference to this information CBI, ACB Mumbai has no letter of permission from the appropriate authority. It is further mentioned in the last para that if I am not satisfied I should send a II appeal to your good self.
8. Almost 02 years have already elapsed since I am pursing to get the information under the RTI Act. Thus the relevant information need to be given to me to defend myself properly in the charge sheet filed against me."
The appeal was heard on 10.9.09 by videoconference. The following are present:
Appellant at CIC HQ, New Delhi Shri R. P. Gupta (representing appellant) Respondents at NIC Studio Mumbai Shri Abhik Modak, SP, CBI Shri R.P. Gupta submitted a letter dated 29.8.09 from Shri N. K. Sethi nominating him as his authorized representative, which has been taken on record.3
Shri Abhik Modak who is also representing DIG submitted that such information as was asked for by appellant Shri Sethi and held by the CBI has been provided. Shri Gupta, however, invited out attention to the appeal of moved by appellant Shri Sethi before us in which he has specifically clarified that he wished to know how the recordings/information was obtained even from the complainant whose taped recording of the conversation have been "made part of charge sheet filed against me by ACB (CBI) Mumbai" In the Court, the CBI has submitted that the copies of these recordings have been authenticated. Appellant Shri N. K. Sethi wished to know how the CBI could have authenticated this when CBI was not authorized to make recordings. To this Shri Modak replied that this authentication was done as a part of the investigation, the details of which are all before the Trial Court.
DECISION NOTICE From the above, it would appear that such information as is held by the CBI in this matter have been provided to appellant Shri Sethi. We have also been assured that any other information with regard to this case, specifically on the point raised by appellant has been submitted to the Court. It will now be open to Shri N. K. Sethi to apply to the Court to obtain that copy of investigation which led the CBI to satisfy itself of the authenticity of the recorded tape in their possession (which is nowhere claimed to be intercepted transmission). The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Announced in the hearing.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10.9.2009 4 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 10.9.2009 5