Central Information Commission
Shri Jawahar Lal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) Sw on 10 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00929 dated 14-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Jawahar Lal
Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) SW
FACTS
By an application of 7-11-06 Shri Jawahar Lal of Najafgarh, New Delhi applied to the DCP (SW) District seeking the following information:
"I want to seek some information which concerns my life and liberty including to my family. Required fee have been deposited as per rules. Required information are as under:-
1. The reasons for not registering the case on 8.10.2006 on my complaint even when my statement was recorded and eye witnesses were also examined by the SHO and ACP, Najafgarh, be informed.
2. Is the photographer not available in P.S. Najafgarh for investigation purposes because the SHO directed me to get the photographs prepared of the scene of crime for which I paid Rs. 200/-.
3. Why the case property in case FIR No. 966/2006 is not being taken into police possession? Up to what period of time will it be expected to be collected?
4. Date wise progress of investigation in case FIR No. 966/2006 P. S. Najafgarh may be supplied along with the complete certified case diaries of the case and I may also be permitted to inspect the work, document, records in file.
5. Certified copy of my statement on which case FIR No. 966/2006 has been registered in P. S. Najafgarh may be supplied to me which bears my signature.
6. For what reasons Sec 506 I.P.C. was not added in FIR when there is clear cut threat to kill in the contents of the FIR No. 966/2006 P. S. Najafgarh.
7. Column No. 7 of the FIR No. 966/2006 P. s. Najafgarh be completed.
8. On 9.10.2006 at about 12.00 noon Shri Lal Singh Yadav intended to dispossess me of my land and thereby interfered with the enjoyment of my rights over my land.1
Shri Lal Singh Yadav along with four persons insulted me and my son Gagan Singh by uttering ugly words relating to my caste in full public view in public place with the intention to grab my land by force regarding which PCR was called and local police was also informed but the case was registered on 25.10.2006 in the police station despite of several requests to SHO Najafgarh. Why the case was not registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 up to 25.10.2006 and after registration of the case why nobody has been arrested in this case? It is the high handedness of the police or some influential persons are involved in it and pressurizing the witnesses. I may be permitted to inspect the case file and the certified case diaries may be supplied to me.
9. Under whose direction the case was not registered up to 25.10.2006 and under whose direction was it registered alter on?
10. was any enquiry conducted by you or by any subordinate to you in the above mentioned case if yes, the name of the enquiry officers and its detailed outcome with date may please be supplied.
11. Accused persons are not being arrested in the above mention cases and are also threatening us to leave our residence etc as well as are pressurizing the witnesses. If any untoward incident happens to us, who will be responsible fir it.
12. Regarding registration of a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is there any disciplinary or panel proceeding under contemplation for initial refusal for the registration of the case by SHO Najafgarh.
13. DD entries of 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 of the calls received from PCR in my case be supplied to me. With their disposal reports by the IO's.
14. DD entry of the PCR call received on 12.10.2006 which was attended by ASI Bhupinder Singh may also be supplied along with its disposal by him and the certified copy of the statement he recorded himself on which the respectable persons signed as witnesses and found the4 call made by Lal Singh to PCR to be a false call."
To this he received a response within 2 days from DCP (SW) dated 9- 11-2006 answering each of the questions point-wise:-
2"1. The incident had taken place in the late night of 8.10.2006 and after some formal inquiries the FIR was lodged on 9.10.2006 vide FIR No. 966/06. Hence there was no delay on the case registration.
2. The I.O. got the photographs of the scene by a private photographer and the amount was also paid by the I.O. No one asked you to take photographs and if you had done so, it was on your own accord.
3. The case is being investigated under close supervision of SHO & SDPO. All that is necessary for the purpose of investigation is being done. You cannot direct the investigating agency about each and every step that has been taken or is to be done.
4. Since the case is pending investigation, the requisite certified copies of our diary are not to be provided in view of sec. 8(1) (h) of RTI Act. As regards the inspection the same is also exempted under the same section as it can impede the process of investigation. Hence the same cannot be allowed at this stage.
5. The FIR was lodged on your own statement and the copy of the FIR has already been provided to you. Now the said statement has become part of the investigation due to some noting by police officials/E.O. etc. Hence the same is also exempted under sec. 8(1) (b).
6. The investigation of the case FIR No. 966/06 is in progress. The enquiry investigations will be added during the investigation, if required.
7. The question pertains to suspects and unknown accused only. The whole prosecution will be completed before finalization of challan u/s 173 Cr. P.C.
8. Initially the matter regarding allegation of uttering of ugly words relating to the caste was inquired by an Inspector and after that the matter was referred to ACP as only ACP and above are entitled to investigate such matters under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act). The case was registered after formal inquiries and the same is under investigation. Arrests are made only when there is sufficient evidence to prove that offence has been committed. No other information / inspection can not be allowed at this stage. The allegations made at this point are false.9. As mentioned at Sr. No. 8 3 10. As mentioned at Sr. No. 8
11. The case is still under investigation. The process of arrest will be done if the crime is proved. However, the local police is taking precaution to maintain peace and provide security in the area. Division and beat staff has been briefed to ensure that witnesses are not pressurized. Till now, there is nothing specific regarding threatening of anybody. However, ACP concerned has been directed to personally look into this matter.
12. Since, no refusal is found on the part of SHO Najafgarh, no disciplinary proceedings are required against him.13. As mentioned at Sr. No. 5
14. The cases are under investigation and requisite information at this point is a vital part of investigation. The supply of same can impede the process of investigation. Hence, the same can not be provided in view of sec 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Subsequently, Shri Jawahar Lal sought information on further points in an application of 26-12-06 to the PIO, DCP (SW) as follows:
"1. According to the information provided to me under RTI Act by you/ PIO/SWD dated 9.11.2006 it may also be clarified that:-
(a) Can an Inspector inquire into the matter regarding allegation of uttering of ugly words relating to the case as mentioned by you in your report.
(b) Who was that Inspector?
(c) How many days he inquired the matter?
(d) Please let me know the outcome of those formal
inquiries made by him.
2. Please let me know the name of ACP with date to whom the matter was referred as mention in your intimation dated 9.11.2006. On which date he visited the place of occurrence? Were any statements recorded by him on that day? If yes, supply the copies of those statements.
Was the complainant available on that day or when the complainant was contacted? Please supply the statement of the complainant recorded by IO with date.
43. Is it not correct that IO has written false case diaries? Please either supply the copies of these case diaries with the statements of PW's u/s 161 Cr. PC or let me inspect the case file of the IO.
4. Were threatening calls made by SHO Kirti Nagar Shri Sat Pal Yadav, from P. S. Kirti Nagar to the complainant on 8.10.2006 in the late hours of night on mobile no. 9811054163 verified by the IO? Will you direct him to take any action against him or will you protect him also?
5. Why a separate case was not registered on my complainant dated 22.10.2006 under SC/ST (POA) Act against Shri Mahaveer Yadav etc who forced me to join the Panchayat and insulted me in the Panchayat with the intention to humiliate me and to make the compromise of their choice and threatened there to dispossess me from my land? Is it not correct that the I. O. has recorded false statements of the witnesses to protect Shri Mahaveer Yadav who is the brother of SHO/ Kirti Nagar and a relative of DCP/SW?
6. Is it justified that the case under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not registered on my complaint for a period of more than 16 days?
7. According to your intimation given to me dated 9.11.2006, in column no. 12 it has been said by you that since no refusal is found on the part of SHO Najafgarh no disciplinary proceedings are required against him. Is it not the incorrect information given by you being a public servant with an intent to save him from punishment insp8ite of the fact that the copy of complaint dated 10.10.2006 was also sent to you and case was registered on 25.10.2006? Did you not consider t his delay of more than 16 days, a delay? Are you responsible for this delay yourself?
8. According to the FIR No. 1018 dated 25.10.2006 P. S. Najafgarh when "inquired into and prima facie a case u/s SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act made out, then"
a. Why the accused Lal Singh Yadav was arrested too late i.e. on 2.12.2006 when the offence was prima facie found to be made out.
b. The gist of the interrogation of the accused Lal Singh Yadav which was recorded by the IO in his case diary may please be supplied.5
c. Why the police remand was not obtained IO to arrest his co-accused persons who have not been arrest ill yet? Was it the in competency of the IO or wilful neglect of his duties to save your relative/ persons known to you or it was done due to your pressure to protect the accused persons?
9. Is it correct that by supplying of information to the complainant of the case can impede the process of investigation as mentioned by you in the given intimation to me dated 9.11.2006? Which section of RTI says that the complainant can impede the investigation?
10. Does it not prove your malafide intention that I was not permitted to inspect the case files by you in which cases I am complainant?
11. The ownership of plot no. 36 which is a Government property which has sold by accused Lal Singh Yadav to Shri Karan Pal Singh was not established by the IO because the land grabbers are your relatives and the IO is under your pressure. Is it correct or there is some other reason like in competency or wilful neglect of duties for not verifying the ownership of the plot?
12. Why any action was not taken against Lal Singh Yadav on 12.10.2006 who made two false calls to the PCR against me in which Govt. Machinery was misguided and criminally misused by him? Why the SHO Najafgarh did not register a case u/s 3(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act or under the relevant Sections of IPC against him? Will you direct him to do so now or not?
13. All the DD entries received in P. S. Najafgarh from PCR on 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 relating to my case are being denied by you because some manipulations have been made in registering the cases against us on your illegal orders. Is it not right? Will you supply these DD entries along with the DD entries of 12.10.2006 and 24.12.2006?
14. I was called on 9.11.2006 by ACP/DIU/SWD in connection with my complaint, ACP/DIU/SWD Shri Ved Pal Rana conducted this enquiry under your orders. The copies of the report of his inquiry may please be supplied to me.
15. On 22.12.2006 I went to the office of Shri Ved Pal Rana ACP/DIU/SW/ Distt to know the status of my complaint which he was enquiring and it was learnt from him that 6 your pressurized him to give the enquiry report in favour of SHO/ Najafgarh and others but he inclined to follow your illegal orders. You scolded him and he has submitted a written complaint against you in this regard to the Joint Commissioner of Police/ southern Range. Is it not correct?
16. In spite of my various complaints from the very beginning that the property reportedly owned by Shri Lal Singh Yadav is a grabbed property:-
a. Why the case was not registered against those persons who are land grabbers and grabbed the Govt property?
b. Was it with your intention to save your relatives from punishment or to save the grabbed property from forfeiture?
c. Was it with your intention to save your subordinates who are following your illegal orders by framing incorrect record knowingly that it is a Govt property but submitted the reports that property belongs to the accused Lal Singh Yadav?
17. Why the GPA of plot No. 36 allegedly owned by accused Lal Singh Yadav was not verified which says that the property is ancestral property of the executants? Is it also correct that it was not verified by the IO to save your relatives along with the executants who is known to you? Has the executants not committed forgery in preparing GPA papers of this plot for Lal Singh Yadav.
18. The occurrence of the offence is on 9.10.2006 the case FIR No. 1018/2006 was registered on25.10.2006 and the challan has been prepared on 15.12.2006 in this regard:-
19. Is it not correct that ACP/IO of the case FIR No. 1018/2006 and SHO/Najafgarh has submitted false status report in the court and false brief facts in the SC/ST Commission.
20. Why the bail of accused Lal Singh was was not opposed by the IO when the counsel of the accused submitted a false information to the court on which the bail was granted?
21. Is it not correct that you are concealing the facts and supplying false information to me under Right to 7 Information Act in order to save your relative and subordinates from punishment?"
On not receiving a response within 48 hours appellant moved his first appeal on 2-1-07 before JCP, Southern Range, which was dismissed by Shri Rajesh Kumar, 1st Appellate Authority, JCP on 25-1-07 as follows:
"I find that the appellant's application dated 26.12.2006 sent to PIO/SWD by the appellant was in continuation/ response to the reply of PIO/SWD issued vide memo No. 1368/DIC/SWD, dated 9.11.2006 i9n which he had asked some more questions related to his matter. As such his application dated 26.12.2006 was not dealt under the life and liberty and supply the information on
22.1.2007 within the stipulated period i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of his application dated 26.12.2006, as per the provisions o the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the PIO/SWD. Hence, the appeal of Shri Jawahar Lal is not maintainable at this stage as the PIO/SWD has sent the reply dated 22.1.2007 to the appellant with it the stipulated period under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in response to his application dated 26.12.2005."
Subsequently, he received a response from CPIO, South West dated 22-1-07 again point-wise responding to each of the questions raised by him as follows:
"(a) An inspector can conduct a formal inquiry into any complaint in which circumstances are not clear. Hence, initially the matter was inquired by an Inspector and after that the matter was referred to ACP as only ACP and above are entitled to investigate such matters under provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. As a result the case was registered.
(b) Shri Hanuman Sahai Meena, Addl. SHO/ Najafgarh.
(c) Fifteen days.
(d) The requisite information can impede the process of
investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act. Hence, the same can not be disclosed.
2. Shri K. S. Bhatnagar, ACP/Najafgarh was referred the matter on 25.10.2006. he visited the place of occurrence on that day itself but you were not available at home on that day. Again on 11.2006 ACP/ Najafgarh visited the site and recorded the statement of Shri Gagan Singh and Shri Gulab Singh both of the mare your sons. Copies of 8 their statements can not be provided as the cases are still pending investigation and the supply of statements can impede the process of investigation as per section 8(1 )
(h) of RTI Act. You were not available on that day also.
3. It is incorrect to say that false case diaries have been written. As regard the supply and inspection of case diaries and stat4ements, the same can not be supplied/ allowed attic stage as the case are still pending investigation and the supply of statement/ inspection can impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1)
(h) of RTI Act. However, you are being updated about the progress of the case from time to time as per report of ACP/Najafgarh.
4. Regarding this matter you may pursue the matter with DCP/West District as the Kirti Nagar police station falls under the jurisdiction of West District. However, no threatening calls were made by SHO/ Kirti Nagar, Inspector Satpal Yadav, he only talked to you to resolve the plot dispute because he has been your colleague at FRRO and both of you had earlier cordial relations with each other as per report received.
5. On 22.10.2006 you joined the Panchayat convened by the elders and respectable persons of the colony to mutually resolve the plot dispute as it was creating disharmony in the neighbourhood. No office under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against Shri Mahaveer Yadav from the perusal of your complaint dated 22.10.2006 and from the investigation conducted. The IO had recorded the true statements of the persons who attend the Panchayat and nowhere could it be established that Shri Mahaveer Yadav insulted the complainant using caste based remarks.
6. Two cross case vide FIR No. 966/06 and 967/06 were registered on 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 respectively due to the fall out of the plot dispute. You did not mention about the caste based insult made by Lal Singh initially when the cross cases were registered but only complained about it later on 10.10.2006. To confirm the veracity of the complaint, since it was made later on after the above two cases were registered, it was necessary to confirm all the facts of the complaint, hence the gap during which enquiry was conducted.
7. If the provided information is false in your view, you can file an appeal as per provisions of this Act. As regards 9 the rest of information, the comments are same as mentioned at point No. 6.
8. (a) To arrest an accused person ,it is obligatory on the part of IO to bring sufficient evidence on file and to fulfil and formalities so that the arrest is justified.
(b) The requisite information i.e. copies of case diary can not be provided as the remaining two cases are pending investigation and the supply of such type of information exempted u/s 8 (1) (h) &(g) of RTI Act as it can impede the process of investigation.
(c) The police remand was not required as all the interrogation had been made from the accused person and no clue about the other four person was forthcoming. It was neither incompetence nor wilful neglect on the part of the IO.
(d) The said case i.e. FIR No. 1018/06 has been sent to Hon'ble Court for trial. Hence, you may pursue the matter with Hon'ble Court.
9. Yes, it is correct that supply of all information of a case on its investigation stage can impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
However, it is obligatory on the part of IO to bring factual evidence on the file. Hence, even the complainant is not entitled to get every type of information. He or she can get the findings/ result of the matter and the same has been provided or is being provided.
10. No. the comments are same as mentioned at Point No. 9.
11. The case has been sent to court for trial, hence, you may pursue the matter with Hon'ble Court. However, the ownership details of plot No. 36 has been verified during the course of investigation of case FIR No. 1018/06 at Tehsil Najafgarh but the record of plot No. 36 as well as the applicant's plot no. 32 is not available in the Revenue records. The Patwari and Girdawar were taken to the spot to establish the exact Khasra Nos. of these two plots, but no clear picture could be provided by them. But he has given in writing that the plot is not Govt. property. There has been neglect in this aspect as the needful has already been done.
1012. On enquiries, it was revealed that the calls were made by Lal Singh on apprehension of his plot being occupied by the applicant. Since there was a dispute between them regarding the plot these calls were made. It was not done with the intention to misuse the Govt. Machinery. A case under relevant section of SC/ST (POA) Act has already been registered against Lal Singh.
13. Since the remaining two cases are pending investigation with Crime Branch/ Delhi, and the supply of requisite DD entries can impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, the same can not be provided.
14. The requisite information i.e. copy of enquiry is exempted as per section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act and you can get only the concluding part of the enquiry report as per orders of Hon'ble CIC, but the same also can not be provided at this stage as the remaining two cases are pending investigation with Crime Branch Delhi the supply of requisite information can impede the process of investigation as per section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
15. No the allegations regarding pressurizing the ACP/DIU are totally false and baseless.
16 (a) It has not been established that the plot in question is a grabbed property.
(b) Not applicable in view of the above submission.
(c) It has been verified by Tehsil/Najafgarh the plot does not belong to Gram Sabha.
17. There has been no requirement to verify the GPA of plot No. 36 as Revenue/ Tehsil office has not complained about the same being Govt. Land No forgery has come to notice in the property papers of Shri Lal Singh.
18 (a) Two cross cases vide FIR No. 966/06 were got registered on 9.10.2006 by you as well as the opposite party. Your statements regarding threat, trespass, damage to property and ample hurt by family of Lal Singh were got recorded by the IO in the evening 9.10.2006 whereas the alleged occurrences pertaining to SC/ST Act took place at 12.00 noon on 9.10.2006 but you did not mention anything about it in your complaint on which FIR No. 966/06 u/s 323/427/451/506/34 IPC was registered and you submitted your complaint in PS Najafgarh on 10.10.2006 regarding allegations of caste based remarks against Lal Singh. In the of justice a preliminary enquiry 11 was got conducted by an officer belonging of S/T category i.e. Inspr. H. S. Meena, Addl. SHO/ Najafgarh and thereafter this case was registered on 25.10.2006. There has been no unnecessary delay in registering the case.
(b) Nowhere is it mentioned in section 7 of SC/ST (POA) Act that challan has to be prepared within 30 days. It is laid down in Sec 7 that the IO will expedite the investigation of the case and a report regarding progress of the case would be sent to senior officers within 30 days and this provision has already been complied with.
(c ) During investigation of case FIR No. 1018/06, the identity of the co-accused could not be ascertained. The accused Lal Singh was interrogated at length about this but he reiterated that he had taken the tractors with mud from Dhansa stand. These people have no permanent base and the tractor trolleys too were without any number. As such the co-accused could not be arrest.
(d) There is no fault at the part of ACP/ Najafgarh.
(e) No, the allegations are false and baseless.
19. It is not correct.
20. The bail was strongly opposed by the IO but granting of bail is the prerogative of Hon'ble Court.
21. It is not correct. If the information is false in your view, you may pursue the matter with the appellate Authority."
Thereafter, on 1-2-07 Shri Jawahar Lal again moved a first appeal before the JCP, Southern Range on the grounds that "knowingly incorrect, incomplete and misleading information have been supplied by him at both the times. Some Information are being denied malafidely by him." After examination of this appeal Shri Rajesh Kumar, 1st Appellate Authority has responded as follows:
"RTI request No. 1 dated 7.11.2006.
Point Nos. 1, 2 and 12: Need no more information.
Point Nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7: The case FIR No. 966/2006 PS Najafgarh is being investigated by Crime Branch, hence PIO/DCP/SW as well as undersigned being appellate authority 12 is not in a position to give information/ copy of documents and to allow to inspect the documents.
Point No. 8: Needs no more information, as the case FIR No. 1018/2006 is, presently, pending trial in the Court. You can take up the matter with the Hon'ble Court to provide certified copies of case diaries etc. However in the aforesaid case the accused was arrested on 2.12.06.
Point Nos. 9 and 10: Point has already been covered by the PIO/DCP/SW vide Point n O. 1 in reply of 2nd application.
Point no. 11: Accused namely Lal Singh S/o Subhash r/o RZ-41 K- Block Gopal Nagal, Najafgarh was arrested in case FIR No. 1018/2006 PS Najafgarh and the case is pending trial in the court.
Point No. 13: The DCP/PIO/SW Distt is directed to supply the DD entries of the calls received from PCR on 8.10.2006 and 9.10.2006 relating to the case of the appellant with their disposal, as requested for.
Point No. 14: The PIO/DCP/SW is directed to give to the appellant a copy of the enquiry report suitably deleting from it any names of specific details which will expose any person to avoidable risk (Reg Section 8 (1) (g).
RTI request No. 2 dated 7.11.2006 1 .
Point Nos. 1,2,5 to 12,14 to 21 no more information is required to be given.
Point No. 3: Since, the case is pending trial in the court, hence, may approach to the Court for the same.
Point no. 4: This is the right of the appellant to know about action taken by the IO in the case relating to him.
The PIO/DCP/SW is directed to inform the appellant, as asked, if the appellant had given information/ complaint to the police in this regard.
Point No. 13: As regards to provide DD entire dated 12.10.2006 and 24.12.2006 the directs already given vide Point No. 14 of 1st RTI request be complied."1
Presumably this has reference to the application of 26.12.'06, which was the second request 13 As will be seen JCP has, therefore, directed that some of the information sought was still qualified for disclosure. This order was complied with through a letter of DCP addressed to Inspector Jawahar Lal on 23-3-07, subsequent to which appellant moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"The PIO/DCP/SWD is himself an accused in case FIR No. 1018///06 P. S. Najafgarh u/s 3 SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 because his name exists in the FIR itself. Therefore, he has concealed some information's and supplied false, incorrect, incomplete, misleading and defensive information's under RTI Act, 2005, knowingly to protect himself as well as his subordinates and to save the other accused persons. He has tortured the applicant by not supply the correct information's knowingly and delayed the investigation of the case which his a Speedy Trial case by the Special court. He has infringed his Fundamental Rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by not supply the desired information's. The Right to know or be informed is the foundation of Democracy and is derived from the Plenary provisions of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India which has also been violated by him. There are sufficient and reasonable ground for an inquiry into the matter who has not only delayed the information release but he have also obstructed to release the information from other authorities malafidely. Public Offices are the Tr5ust for the people and the PIO/DCP/SWD being a public servant is a trustee of the information's but he has denied the information's to the applicant which is also a Breach of Trust, hence he is liable for punishment besides the fine as per provision of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the penalty may please be imposed upon him and the disciplinary action against Shri R. S. Yadav may also be taken for violation of Law under the Service Rules applicable to him u/s 20 of RTI Act, 2005. The direction may also be issued to him to supply the correct information's for which the applicant is waiting since 7.11.2006 till today and is being tortured by him being a member of Scheduled Caste Community. Pass such other orders also which your Honour deem fit, in the interest of Justice."
The appeal was heard on 10-12-08. Following are present.
Appellant Shri Jawahar Lal.
Respondents Shri L. C. Jain, LA/CP on behalf of Spl. CP. Shri S. R. Yadav, ACP.
Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP/SW.
Ms. Sharmila, ASI 14 Inspector Jawahar Lal appellant conceded that further information had been received subsequent to his moving this appeal before us. However, the key issue is information provided against question No. 14 in the information sought in application of 7-11-06 which is as follows:
S. No. Information sought in the Reply.
application of 7.11.2006
1. DD entry of the PCR call The EO reached at the
received on 12.10.2006 spot for the purpose of
which was attended by enquiry and the verified
ASI Bhupinder Singh may the facts. The
also be supplied along complainant did not record
with its disposal by him his written statement.
and the certified copy of However, no such
the statement he recoded possession was found at
himself on which the the spot. Hence, the call
respectable persons was filed.
signed as witnesses and
found the call made by Lal
Singh to PCR to be a false
call.
In this context appellant SI Jawahar Lal submitted a copy of the report of ASI, Bhupinder Singh of 2-6-07 in which Shri Bhupinder Singh has submitted as follows:
"After statement of Lal Singh was recorded, Lal Singh intimated that he is not feeling well and also directed his children not to sign the statement, which fact is apparent from the signatures of President of colony Mr. Sat Prakash and others 2 and no proof of grabbing of land found and copy of report was filed on 11th October"
In this context Shri Jawahar Lal also submitted a statement of information remaining outstanding a copy of which was handed over to respondent Ms. Shalini Singh, DCP (SW).
Respondent Ms. Shalini Singh on the other hand submitted that Shri Jawahar Lal had been invited to inspect the records, had then inspected them and submitted a note of satisfaction which was also displayed in the hearing. Although appellant Jawahar Lal conceded that he had, in fact, inspected the file he stated that the documents sought in consequence had not been fully provided, hence the plea above. Ms. Shalini Singh therefore, stated that they 2 Underlined by us for reference 15 have no objection in disclosing the information on record and if anything remains that would be provided forthwith. In this context she agreed that any enquiry report held by the Department from Shri H.S. Meena and any recorded statement held but not provided would be so provided to appellant Shri Jawahar Lal.
DECISION NOTICE In light of the above and with the expression of readiness of respondents to provide the information sought by Shri Jawahar Lal remaining information outstanding as follows will be supplied to him within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice:
1. Copy of statement of Lal Singh as recorded, together with the statement with signatures of President of colony Mr. Sat Prakash and others
2. Any enquiry report held by the Department from IO Shri H.S. Meena The appeal is thus allowed in part. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10-12-2008 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 10-12-2008 16