Central Information Commission
Mrindar Pal Singh vs Gnctd on 4 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/001738
Inder Pal Singh v. PIO, Anti Corruption Branch
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 14.07.2014 Reply: 06.08.2014 Time: 23 days
FAA: 20.08.2014 FAO: 05.09.2014 Time: 16 days
SA: 18.11.2014 Hearing:28.4 2015 Decision:4615
Result: Appeal disposed off
Parties Present:
Appellant is present and respondent authority is represented by Santosh Singh and others.
FACTS:
2. Appellant through his RTI application sought to know whether before filing of charge sheet in FIR No. 20/2000 prosecution opinion was sought for and if Yes, the detail of the same, Copy of the Opinion given. PIO stated that as criminal appeals are pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, a copy of the prosecution objection could not be provided under Sec 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority upheld the PIO reply. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached commission.
Decision:
3. Both the parties made the submissions. The matter in hand raises the following two issues:
(i) Whether, in view of the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the matter can be said to be under prosecution in terms of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act; and (ii) If it is held that the matter is still under prosecution, whether disclosure of requested information would impede the process of such prosecution, as contemplated u/s 8 (1) (h). 4 . Full bench of the commission in the case of Smt Durgesh Kumari Vs Income tax department in the case of Smt. Durgesh Kumari v. Income tax department [CIC/LS/A/2010/000685] dated 26.08.2011 had observed as follows :
"10. We will now take up these issues one by one. As regards issue No (i) above, it would be expedient to extract clause (h) of section 8 (1) which reads as follows : "(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders" A bare reading of the above clause would indicate that any information which tends to impede the process of investigation or apprehension or 'prosecution of offenders' is not to be disclosed under this Act.
11. Admittedly, the appellant has been tried and convicted by the trial court. Her appeal is pending before the High Court. In our opinion, the process of 'prosecution' is not yet over and it is still continuing, for, it is open to the court to affirm, modify or reverse the trial court judgement and thereupon any of the parties may further agitate the matter before the apex court. The process of prosecution, thus, is a continuing process which can be said to be over only when all judicial remedies have been fully exhausted. This is the situation in the present case.
12. It is common place that the word 'prosecution', as occurring in section 8 (1) (h), means and implies initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings in the competent court. Termination of proceedings in the trial court can not mean conclusion of proceedings when this very issue has been agitated before a higher judicial forum (High Court in the present case) either by the State or by the accused. In the premises, we hold that the case is still under 'prosecution' in terms of section 8 (1) (h).
13. As regards issue No (ii), the real question is whether disclosure of requested information would impede the process of ongoing prosecution. It may be apt to mention that a full fledged Code, namely, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been enacted by the Parliament which contains extensive provisions for the conduct of investigation and prosecution. The Code provides for fair trial, in conformity with the principles of natural justice and has stood the test of time in its previous incarnations as also in the present one ever since the introduction of anglosaxon system of justice in the country. No trial can be conducted without offering fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself. The Code provides for supply of copies of documents to the accused relied upon by the prosecution. The accused has a right to be defended by a Counsel of his choice. He has also the right to the cross examine the witnesses produced against him. Besides, he can also produce witnesses in his defence.
Section 313 of the code entitles him to explain or clarify the evidence proved against him at the trial. We may also add that, as per this Code, a copy of the sanction for prosecution is also required to be supplied to the appellant well before the commencement of trial. He also has the right to cross examine the authority who accorded the sanction for prosecution. Besides, the entire file, in which the matter of sanction for prosecution has been processed, is required to be produced before the Court for its perusal. Suffice it to say that the Code provides for fair trial in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Hence, in the premises, the request of the appellant for a copy of the file in which the sanction for prosecution was processed in difficult to appreciate. Hence, the contention of Shri Sumit Sharan that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution can not be taken lightly. Further more, as mentioned hereinabove, the Delhi High Court has held that once the matter is before the court, disclosure of any information in regard thereto would impede the process of prosecution.
14. In the premises, we hold that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution.
15. To sum up, we hold that the present matter is still under 'prosecution' and the disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution in terms of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Hence, in our opinion, the decisions of CPIO and AA do not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed."
5. Commission in view of the above stated decision does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority. With these observations, the present appeal is closed.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer, Anti Corruption Branch (Directorate of Vigilance), Vikas Bhawan - 2, 5th Floor, Upper BEla Road, Delhi
2. Sh Inder Pal Singh, B23, B block, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi 110095