Central Information Commission
Shri Ashish Kumar Paul vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 18 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00545 dated 16.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Appellant - Shri Ashish Kumar Paul
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Facts:
By an application of 7-5-2007 Shri Ashish Kumar Paul of Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi sought the following information from the Dte. Of Forensic Science:-
"1. Perusal upon your report No. CFSL/2005/P-0468/6443-44 dated 8.12.2005 in case FIR No. 488/04 u/s 387/509/407/34 IPC with expression of inability to examine due to improper supply of sample is countered by Chandigarh based laboratory report to say that such control sample recorded by way of reading sufficient paragraph of new papers in the same language can be consider for comparison/examination which was intimated both of you and us vide their reference No. CFSL/2012/2006/Estt/74-73 on 4.4.2007 under the RTI Act 2005. Please send information that why your report is countered by Chandigarh based CFSL and which one is trustworthy, impartial, who influenced for this Machiavellian.
2. Please let me access which law permit you to use an arrogant language used on your above mention report in Para six from the top is "UTTERRENCE SPOKEN BY THE SUSPECTS IN THE SAMPLE VOICE RECORDING HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED" which is not only create a serious doubt on competency of Ld. Court of Smt. Ruby Alka Gupta, MM, KKD, and her recording teams but also falsified your report on barely reading of her prepared forwarding letter, Topics in the news papers chosen by the Ld. Court during recording & 10 pages hard core paper conversation prepared by the I.O. Ram Sunder from the "Q" Marked Cassette.
3. Please disclosed with your comment that your unique demand of proper voice sample was comes under duty like other laboratory, as other laboratory only submit their report in conformity of sample or denial, how it was free from above allegation and in this manner your are not shaking public 1 faith life the case of Jessica Lal murder case. Please also inform us that how an accused will trust after watching a long irregularities and corruption in prosecution teams that as they are found guilty vide FIR No. RC-55/96, DCP vigilance enquiry letter No. 1236 through NHRC, departmental suspension during investigation of this case to the Sub Inspector and Inspector of P.S. Preet Vihar is also a wrong claim. Please also inform us that new investigation officer Jai Bhagwan is not keeping revenging attitude for issuance bailable warrant to their pre-decisive police officer by the concerned court of Shri R. B. Singh, MM Court No. 30, KKD Delhi-92.
4. Another significant information pertaining to old voice sample collected from the suspects is to be disclose forthwith that whether the demand of proper voice sample is after examination by destroying the seal of court or it is lying in a intact position and merely after reading of papers prepared by the Ld. M. M. and Investigation Officer. Please also inform us that it is not a machination after finding our entire innocence.
5. Please let us know the logic of enforcing us for a chief manner to pronunciations abusive language by your deployed CFSL team gesture and why not the sober manner as adopted previously by the Ld. Court of Smt. Alka Gupta MM, KKD and advice sent by the other laboratory based on Chandigarh.
6. What is the evidentiary value of voice sample examination & its report, if it is not claimed through FIR No. 488/04, why the fresh samples from the two suspects while the allegation is only on one and what is the authenticity of questioned marked sample."
To this he received an initial reply dated 26-7-2007 from Shri K. V. Ravi Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer Gr. I (FS) of the Dte of Forensic Science informing him that the case under reference relates to the Central Forensic Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi and, therefore, the request was being forwarded to that Public Authority. Consequently In a letter of 7-8-2007 CPIO Shri N. B. Bardhan, PSO (Ball) CFSL, New Delhi refused the information on the following grounds;-
"CFSL CBI New Delhi examines the materials sent by the forwarding authorities of the cases in its fiduciary capacity and 2 accordingly exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005."
Upon this Shri Paul has moved a complaint directly to us with the following prayer:-
"In order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of Central Bureau of Investigation, nature of information questioned in the interest of large No. of people, a direct relief to the applicant from fake litigation, a strong direction is solicited, against CFSL, CBI by disallowing to get advantage of exemption provision u/s 8(1)(e). The appellant may please be informed all dates of effective hearing through jail superintendent & please allow appellant to produce before this commission through production Warrant either exercising power of this Hon'ble Commission or through Concerned CMM at the time of final disposal of this Appeal."
This complaint was forwarded to us by the Superintendent Central Jail 2. The appeal was scheduled for hearing through Videoconference on 18-2-2009. However, we received an intimation of 7-2-2009 whereby Dy. Superintendent, Central Jail-2 informed the Registry that Shri Ashish Kr. Paul stands "released and no more confined in this Jail." The notice for the hearing was also forwarded to Shri Paul by the Dy. Superintendent vide the same reference. The complaint was then heard in the Commission on 18-2-2009. The following are present:
Appellant Shri R. D. Paul.
Respondents Shri N. B. Bardhan, PSO (Ball) & CPIO.
Shri D. K. Tanwar, SSO-II (Physics).
Shri R. D. Paul submitted that complainant Shri A. K. Paul was engaged in earning a livelihood at present and therefore unable to attend. Shri N. B. Bardhan, PSO submitted that the original application was received by the Dte. Of Forensic Science and forwarded to the CFSL only on 22-6-2007. He was, therefore not in a position to explain how the matter was delayed between 7-5- 5007 and 22-6-2007.3
We find that Shri A. K. Paul has not taken recourse to a first appeal under section 19 (1).
DECISION NOTICE st Because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of appellant, which are of direct concern to her public authority and because appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or apprehension of malafide on the part of the Department, the Commission has st decided to remand this appeal to 1 appellate authority Ms. Vibha Rani Ray, Director, CFSL CBI, Block-IV, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, who is directed to dispose of the appeal within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision, under intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission. If not satisfied with the information so provided, nd appellant Shri A. K. Paul will be free to move a fresh 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3).
Director Ms. Vibha Rani Ray will also examine the reasons for delay in responding to the original application dated 7-5-2007, when it was received and reasons for failure if any to respond within the time limit mandated u/s 7 (1), obtain the explanation of the official found responsible for the delay and submit the same to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission together with her recommendation by or before 18th March, 2009. The complaint 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 18.2.2009 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 18.2.2009 5