Central Information Commission
Sudhir Lakra vs Cbi on 7 July, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2021/110453
Sudhir Lakra ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
O/o the Supdt. Of Police, RTI Cell,
Economic Offences Branch, Kali Babu
Street, Ranchi - 834001, Jharkhand. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/04/2022
Date of Decision : 30/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 16/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 06/01/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/03/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.12.2020 seeking the following information:
1. Certified copy of letter No.1166/3/14(8)/2008- AHD- R dated 26th March 2010 sent to the General Manager (EM 81. HR), Baroda Corporate Centre, Mumbai by the Supdt. Of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, AHD Cell, 1 Kali Babu Street, Ranchi and its enclosure Investigation Report of Sri Azam Razz, Investigating Officer, CBI, Ranchi.
2. Certified copy of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by CHI.
3. Certified copy of Report of SP. 0131.
4. Certified copy of Investigation Report of Sri Azam Raza, Investigation Report.
5. Certified copy of Cr. P.C. Act under provisions / section of "Pick and Choose Method" for Investigation wherein investigating Officer can adopt to "PiClc and Choose Method" to choose accuse persons and to acquittal of accused persons whose names are already recorded in the statement of prosecution witnesses u / s. 161 Cr. P.C. by Investigating Officer. Sri Azam Raza (PW-40), Investigating Officer has deposed in trial court, he has adopted for "Pick and Choose Method" to choose accuse persons and to acquittal of accused persons. Sri Azam Raza (PW-40), Investigating Officer has acquitted 10 accused persons as per evidences of prosecution witnesses.
6. Certified copy of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sub-section (1) (d) of section 13 and sub-section (2) section of 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Certified copy of Supplementary Report of SP, CBI after arrest/ judicial -
custody of-accused Satish Kumar Sahu as per Order sheet dated 25.02.2019 of State vs. Satish Kumar Sahu in the case of RC.14(S)/2008- AHD-R (IA).
8. Certified copy of Supplementary Investigation Report and Chargesheet after arrest / judicial custody of accused Satish Kumar Sahu as per Order sheet dated 25.02.2019 of State vs. Satish Kumar Sahu in the case of RC.14(S)/2008- AHD-R (IA).
9. Certified copy of crime manual for recommendation for "Vibhagiya janch."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 16.12.2020 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
2The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: B K Singh, Additional SP & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that the denial of the information citing Section 24 of the RTI Act is not apt as the subject matter of the RTI Application pertains to an allegation of corruption as it is based on the investigation carried out against a bank loan fraud case, reference to which was made in the RTI Application as under:
In Para-2 of brief facts of the case of Chargesheet No.4/2010 dated 21.05.2010:
"It transpired during investigation that Sri Kailash Nath, the then Senior Manager functioned as Branch Manager, Sri Sudhir Lakra, the Manager, functioned as Manager (Credit), both of Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Ranchi, Sri Satish Kumar Sahu & Santosh Sahu both brothers & partners of M/S. Neelam Spices, Three imposters, Sri Rajeev Ranjan "Arvind", a penal advocate and Sri Ritesh Kumar, Prop. of M/S. OMO, during the 2005-06, criminally conspired amongst themselves in furtherance to that & on the basis of forged & fabricated documents and by abusing official position as public servant, get sanctioned and disbursed bank loan of rupees One crore (Rs.25 lakh as term loan & Rupees 75 lass as Cash Credit) from Bank of Baroda, Main Road Branch, Ranchi and cheated the Bank as on 23.12.2008, Rs.88,30,645/- is outstanding dues to the bank."
xxx As per evidences / statements deposed by prosecution witnesses during cross examined by the learned counsel of defence on behalf accused Sudhir Lakra, Sri Azam Raza(PW-40) (10) has abused his official position as a public servant and acquitted 10 accused persons and made defective investigation report, namely accused persons Smt. Neeta Singh, Officer Credit, Sri Murlidhar Ram, Officer Credit & Sri Anjani Kumar Jha, Senior Manager Credit and Sri Pradeep Dilip Potnis then Regional Manager for preparation and sanction loan proposal of M/s. Neelam spices on the basis of unsigned documents of borrowers / guarantors and documents not verified with original by the branch, Sri Kailash Chandra Kulshrestha, Govt. Registered Valuer for submission of false valuation report dated 18.07.2005 of landed property of sale deed no.313 dated 07.01.1974, area of land 2.81 acre in the 3 name of Sri Budhram Sahu, Jairam. Sahu and Girdhari Ram Sahu without verification from any local persons regarding ownership of plot, Sri Girish Nath Singh. the District Sub-Register, Ranchi, Md. Daud Ali and Anand Kumar, Both Clerks of Registry Office, Ranchi for issuing false non incumbency certificate area of land 2.81 acre in place of 0.81 acre to Budhram Sahu and others, Sri Girish Nath Singh, the then District Sub- Registrar, Ran' chi for non compliance of KYC of Shri Deonath Ahir & Jagtu Ahir, SELLER of the land of sale deed 13013 dated 27.08.2005 to Santosh Kumar Sahu, Sri Sujit Kumar, the then District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi for registration of sold and mortgaged landed property of sale deed no.17148 twice in the name of family members of Santosh Sahu sold by Sri Birendra Kumar and Shri Birendra Kumar for selling the same land (sale deed no.17148) to Shri Santosh Sahu and his family members twice...."
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant amongst others was chargesheeted in the year 2010 and as per Section 207 of the CrPC, the Appellant being an accused was provided with the complete documents relied upon before trial. He further submitted that the Appellant was convicted and has also served a jail term of 5 years, yet he chose to file a RTI Application 10 years later in the year 2020. He furthermore submitted that the Appellant has filed a criminal revision appeal before the competent Court in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of the CPIO observes that the allegation of corruption was rather pertinent in the matter and which fact has also not been denied to by the CPIO during the hearing. For the said reason, the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act claimed in the CPIO's reply is not appropriate.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the available and relevant information as sought for at points 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 in the RTI Application restricted to the records that pertain to the Appellant alone. In other words, records related to third parties shall not be parted with in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act or where the records bear mention of third party's personal information, such portion shall be redacted and provided to the Appellant as per Section 10 of the RTI Act. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.4
Further, no relief is being ordered with respect to points 5 & 6 of the RTI Application as point no.5 seeks answer to a speculative query which is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, while point no.6 seeks for certifying the provisions of a Statutory Act passed by the Parliament, which is not a record deemed to be held under the "control of a public authority".
With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5