Central Information Commission
Shri Jagdish Ambedkar vs Dte Of Prosecution, Tis Hazari Courts, ... on 10 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/06/220 dt. 19-5-06 & CIC/AT/A/2006/0037 dated 11-3-2006
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Jagdish Ambedkar
Respondent: Dte of Prosecution, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FACTS
These are two appeals filed by Shri Jagdish Ambedkar of Rama Vihar Colony, Delhi as follows:
File No. CIC/WB/A/2006/220 By an application of 28-10-2005 Shri Jagdish Ambedkar appellant applied to the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution, Govt. of NCT, Delhi seeking the following information:
1. Who was Ld. APP who appeared before the LD. Court of Shri Shiv Charan, MM, Delhi in respect with FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC P. S. IP Estate, New Delhi on dated 21.03.2001.
2. Whether there was any notice/ summon of hearing for dated 21.03.2001 to the accused Jagdish Ram in case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, Delhi. If yes, on what day and in what manner? If no, for what reasons, non bailable warrants for arrest of accused Jagdish Ram were obtained by the prosecution from the LD. Court of Shri Shiv Charan, MM, Delhi on 21.03.2001 and sent to SHO PS IP Estate, Delhi for execution?
3. Whether on any day of hearing in trial proceedings in case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, any counsel at state expenses appeared on behalf of the accused Jagdish Ram? If yes, who was the Ld. Counsel at the state expenses and on what days of hearing LD. Counsel at state expenses on behalf of accused Jagdish Ram was appeared before the LD. Trial Court?
4. Whether the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161 of Cr. PC during investigation in Case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, Delhi by the police along with list of witnesses were forwarded to Ld. Trial Court, as required under section 173 (5) of Cr. PC. If yes, what are page numbers of the statements in the LT. Trial Court Record?
5. Whether the TCR related to case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate was moved to any other court/ courts from the LD.1
Trial Court, after having received from the Hon'ble Delhi High Courts on 8.10.2001 till the date of framing the charge on 23.04.2002? If yes, for what purposes and to which court/ courts, it was moved?
6. Whether leave of Hon'ble Delhi High Courts was obtained by the prosecution in case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, Delhi to proceed, further with the trial beyond the period and manner prescribed by the orders passed on 28.9.2001 by Hon'ble Court of Justice Mr. K. S. Gupta, Delhi High Courts in case No. Crl. Misc (Main) 635/2001. If yes, when and in what manner, leave of Hon'ble High Court was obtained. If no, under what authority of law, the prosecution has proceeded with the trial in Ld. Trial Court beyond the period and manner as ordered as above by Hon'ble Delhi High Courts?
7. Whether the IO of the case and PW N. S. Khatana were examined in case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, Delhi in the Ld. Trial court by the prosecution? If yes, on what day and what are their statements."
To this he received a response on 21-11-05 as follows:
1. "That in respect of information sought by you in Para no. 1 of your application. It is informed that Shri Sukhbir Singh, Asstt.
Public Prosecutor had appeared before the Ld. Court of Shri Shiv Charan, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in respect with case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, New Delhi pm 21.02.2001.
2. That in respect of information sought by you in Para no. 4 of your application, you are informed that the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded us/ 161 Cr. PC during investigation in case FIR No. 215/90 u/s 420 IPC PS IP Estate, Delhi along with list of witnesses were forwarded to the Ld. Trial Court as required u/s 173 (5) of Cr. PC. However, in reference to your demand of the page numbers of such statement of the trial court record are not available with this office and such information can be obtained by you by making an inspection of the judicial file available with the trial court.
3. That in respect of the information sought by you in Para no. 7 of your application, you are informed that the Investigating Officer of case FIR No. 215/90 of PS I. P. Estate under reference could not be examined in the case before the court having been reported to have died. As regards PW N. S. Khatana, you are also informed that this witness also could not be examined before the trial court.
4. That as regards the information sought by you as per Para no. 2,3, 5 and 6 of your application, you are hereby informed that 2 such information is not available with this Directorate and can be easily obtained by you, by inspecting the court record under the rules."
Aggrieved by this response Shri Jagdish Ambedkar moved his first appeal on 2-12-05 in which he submitted that no statement of witnesses is available along with list of witnesses in the trial court file. In disposing of the appeal 1st Appellate Authority, Shri M.K. Sharma, Director of Prosecution, Delhi in his order of 20-12-05 has decided as follows:
1. "Para one of the appeal is maintainable as already the correction has been made and the date referred be read as 21.03.2001 not 21.02.2001, resulting that information given is correct.
2. No information as asked in Para No. 2 of the appeal can be provided as there is no such record in the Prosecution Branch.
3. The reply of Para No. 3 of the Information Officer is correct as no such record is being maintained in the Prosecution Branch and as such the information sought in this Para cannot be given."
In his response to the appeal notice Vs. Y.S. Yadav, Director of Prosecution, Delhi has submitted as follows:
"(a) That Para 4(a) of the appeal is incorrect and denied as stated by applicant/ appellant to the extent that the information submitted by the answering PIO was false and incorrect. The information supplied by the answering PIO is factually correct and is based on the record maintained/ available with the Prosecution Directorate, Govt. of NCT.' He has also submitted that it appears that the appeal has not been presented before this Commission within the prescribed limit of time under the Right to Information Act.
This appeal was heard on 12-10-06. The followings were present:-
1. Shri Jagdish Ambedkar.
2. Shri Y. S. Yadav.
3. Shri D. Paul.
The appellant Shri Ambedkar contested the statement of respondents that they have in fact forwarded the statement of prosecution witnesses to the 3 trial court. He states that in fact no such statement has been forwarded according to the copy of the records which he had obtained from Distt. and Sessions Court. He also indicated that he has filed another appeal under RTI for failure of Distt. and Sessions Court to supply him with the information asked for from that Court. The two cases may therefore, be linked. We therefore directed that the appellant Shri Ambedkar will produce evidence that contrary to the statement by appellate authority Shri N. K. Sharma that the concerned documents had been sent to the Trial Court, that in fact they had not been sent. After obtaining such evidence a joint hearing of the two appeals will be scheduled failing which a decision may be taken on merits.
File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/0037 In this case application dated 7-12-05 was made to PIO Shri Sunil Gaur, O/o Addl. District & Session Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi seeking the following information:
1. "1. Complete particulars of cases, which are pending for final disposal for 10 years and more at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Complete particulars of cases pending at Tis Hazari Courts ordered by Hon'ble Delhi High Courts to be concluded on day-
to-day basis and within time bound period.
3. Complete particulars of cases filed by the prosecution under section 173 (2) of Cr. PC without statement of prosecution witnesses under section 173 (5) of Cr. PC along with the police report under section 173 (2) of Cr. PC and LT. Trial Court took cognizance and violated judicial ruling of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Dutta, in Calcutta High Courts in Criminal Revision No. 738 of 1992 decided on 26.06.1995 in case of Raghubirsaran Jain Vs State reported in 1995 Cr. L. J. 4117.
4. Complete particulars of cases in which the LD. Tribal Courts issued non-bailable warrants against the accused persons for the absent of the day for which accused had no notice/ summon to appear before the Ld. Trial Courts.
5. Complete particulars of cases in which statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr. P. C. by police during investigation are not on Trial Court Record and the Ld. Trial Courts have been conducting trial against the accused persons.
46. Complete particulars of cases u/s 420 of IPC in which charges were framed against the accused persons that the prima-facie offence u/s 420 IPC is made out against the accused as by producing a false certificate he cheated the appointing authorities of Delhi Police to issue with the appointment letter for the post of SI (Executive) in Delhi Police after relying upon the said certificate and Ld. Trial Courts have been conducting the trial without jurisdiction and power to decide the issue that the accused had secured job on the basis of false certificate as by virtue of Section 28 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 no court except Supreme Court, or any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time in force, shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment of such service matters and by virtue of Section 14 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 all such jurisdiction, powers and authority had been vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. Complete particulars of cases in which Ld. Trial Court himself allowed to the accused persons the services of counsel at state expenses and framed the charges against the accused persons without hearing the counsel on behalf of the accused persons."
On not receiving a response Shri Ambedkar moved his first appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority on 18-1-2006. On still not receiving a response Shri Ambedkar moved his second appeal with the following prayer:
1. "Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Delhi kindly be directed to furnish the requisite information to the appellant in accordance with RTI Act, 2005;
2. Public Information Officer and First Appellant Authority of the respondent kindly be awarded any of the penalties as provided under RTI Act, 2005;
3. Ld. District & Session Judge, Delhi kindly be directed to compensate the appellant with the amount, which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper into the present facts and circumstances for the losses and detriment suffered as the appellant has been suffering wrongful losses to his mental peace, physical comfort, money and time de to non-furnishing of requisite information by the public information officer of the respondent under the RTI Act, 2005; and
4. Any other order/ orders which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper into the present facts and circumstances."
We have treated this as a complaint.
5The appeal was heard on 10-7-08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Jagdish Ambedkar.
Respondent Shri Atul Kumar Gupta, PIO/ Addl. PP.
Appellant Shri Jagdish Ambedkar has submitted a copy of evidence of details of documents which were submitted by prosecution along with charge sheet in case FIR No. 215, dated 2-5-90 u/s 420 IPC, PS I.P. Estate, New Delhi under which the following documents are stated to have been submitted:
Challan Form-3; Original Document -1; Copy of FIR-1; Fard Possession-1; Photocopy Appointment-1; Photocopy Attestation Form-3; Photocopy S.C. Certificate-1; Photocopy Agreement Form-1; Bail & Personal Bond-1; Order of Court Bail-1; Undertaking-1; Office Copy of Jaipur-1; Convictionslip-1; Caste Certificate & affidavit- 3 He submitted that names and statement of witnesses are nowhere mentioned. PIO Shri Atul Kumar Gupta, Addl. PP submitted that these names are submitted directly by the SHO. The Trial Court and the office of Public Prosecutor does not maintain the record.
DECISION NOTICE In File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/0037 The Commission has decided to treat this application as a complaint petition u/s 18 (c) of the said Act and hereby directs the PIO, O/o Distt & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi to provide the information sought to applicant Shri Ambedkar within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this decision.
The PIO is directed to appear personally before the Commission on
29. 7.2008 at 4:00 a.m. and show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day from the date when the information became due i.e. 07.1.'06 to the date when the information is actually supplied, not exceeding Rs.25, 000/- should 6 not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO may in the alternative submit his written submission to this Commission on or before 22.07.2008.
In File No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00220 The issue before us in this case is simply whether the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC during investigation along with the list of witnesses was forwarded to the trial court as required u/s 135 of Cr. PC. Shri D. Paul, PIO, Dte. Of prosecution has clearly stated as quoted above that this had indeed been forwarded. The PIO cannot now claim that such information is not accessible to that office in light of the clear information already provided. PIO Shri Atul Kumar Gupta Addl PP will, therefore, enquire into this matter and report back to Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, within 20 working days whether in fact, this list of witnesses together with statements was sent to the Learned Trial Court or not sent. If the former, appellant will be informed of the details. If the latter be the case, reasons for incorrect information being provided, together with the official responsible for such a lapse will also be provided.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10-7-2008 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 10-7-2008 7