Central Information Commission
Mrs C Sharma vs Gnctd on 30 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
CIC/SA/A/2014/000420
Appellant : S.C.Sharma
Respondent : Tis Hazari Court
Date of hearing : 21.10.2014
Date of decision : 30.10.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Section 3, 19(3) of the
RTI Act
Result : Appeal allowed/
Disposed of
Heard on 21.10.14. Appellant present. Respondent is represented by Shri Balbir Singh.
2. Appellant through his RTI application dated 28012013 sought information with respect to the decision of Supreme Court of India whereby it was stated that Rape cases had to be decided within 2 months Viz i) Whether the above decision of the supreme court was brought to the notice of presiding officers of these courts by APP for expedious disposal of such cases in compliance with the decision and if not what is the present status..... v) What steps Govt. Have taken to computerize the working of the prosecution branch so as to enable them to discharge their duties properly. Kindly indicate whether any proposal for computerisation have been recieved from the prosecution branch and what is the present status...etc. PIO responded on 07032013 stating that no specific information had been sought in the RTI application. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, the appellant preferred First Appeal on 08042013. FAA by his Order dated 17052013 had traferred the First Appeal to FAA of Directorate of Prosecution. FAA of Directorate of Prosection Via his Order dated 24062013 dirceted the PIO to furnish the information. In Compliance of FAA Order, PIO replied on 03072013.
3. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, the appellant approached the Commission in Second Appeal with the following prayer:
a. That the reply given by FAA in home department is very vague and misleading.
b. That in this matter it is the duty of the Home department to give information to give information about fixation of duties of APP and other officers of the prosecution branch. This information has been denied to the appellant.
c. That information about computerisation in the prosecution branch including perparation of the software so that the status of the various criminal cases pending in various courts could be made available for inspection in the office of Home Department and in the office of the prosecution department by the FAA. In this connection an article an appeared in Times of India dated 23.09.2013 about missing file in a rape matter in lower court for more than 20 years. This shows lack of monitoring by the prosecution brnach which is riddled with monumental corruption and due to vested interest computerisation including engagement of an agency for preparation of software for monitoring of court cases has not been done whereas DDA and other govt. Department have developed software for monitoring of court cases and avoiding delay.
d. That according to the current practice in lower courts, APP are not present but their presence is marked in the order sheet subsequently
4. The Commission after hearing the submissions directs the PIO to inform the Appellant as to when judgements of Supreme Court directing the trial courts to complete rape cases within a specific period is being circulated to the courts through prosecutors.
5. The appeal is disposed with the above direction.
Sd/ (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar