Central Information Commission
Raj Karan vs Delhi Police on 11 June, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/124548
Shri Raj Karan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Addl. DCP. Delhi Police
Vigilance Branch, Vth Floor,
Police Station Building,
Thana Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110001
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2021
Date of Decision : 11.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.01.2019
PIO replied on : 01.02.2019
First Appeal filed on : 11.03.2019
First Appellate Order on : 14.03.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 24.05.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2019 and stated that an FIR No. 2/16, U/s 7/13 (1 d) of P C Act was registered against him at P.S. Vigilance which is pending enquiry. The Appellant therefore sought copy of DD No. 6A dated 31.05.2016.
The PIO vide letter dated 01.02.2019 denied the information u/s 8(1(h) of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2019. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2019 upheld the reply of the PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
.Page 1 of 3
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from PIO cum DCP, Vigilance vide letter dated 04.06.2021 wherein it was stated that the copy of DD No 06A dated 13.05.2016 was not disclosed to the Appellant as per Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act as the case of FIR no 02/2016 dated 31.05.2016 u/s 7/13 (1) (d) of the POC ACT, PS Vigilance was registered against the Appellant and the same was sent to the prosecution branch for scrutiny.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that copy of DD No 6A dated 31.05.2016 was not provided despite being a public document.
The Respondent represented by Smt Sanjita, ACP, Vigilance Brach participated in the hearing through audio conference. She stated that the charge sheet has been sent to the prosecution branch for scrutiny and will be filed before the concerned Court shortly. While explaining that copy of the charge sheet will be provided to the Appellant once it is filed, she stated that since changes may be suggested by prosecution side to the draft charge sheet, it was not felt prudent to disclose the DD/ Roznamcha at this stage.
Decision:
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that as per Section 172 (3) of the CrPC, 1973, the copy of the Daily Dairy is not disclosable to any party including the accused. The relevant provision in this context is reproduced below.
"172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section Page 2 of 3 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), shall apply"
Furthermore, The Apex Court in the matter of Balaram vs. State of Uttarakhand Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9314 of 2016) dated 19.04.2017 held that:
"16. The police diary is only a record of day to day investigation made by the investigating officer. Neither the Accused nor his agent is entitled to call for such case diary and also are not entitled to see them during the course of inquiry or trial. The unfettered power conferred by the Statute Under Section 172 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure on the court to examine the entries of the police diary would not allow the Accused to claim similar unfettered right to inspect the case diary."
Reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dy. Comm. Of Police vs. D.K. Sharma WP(C) 12428/2009 dated 15.12.2012) wherein it was held that:
"No prejudice can be caused to the Petitioner if the D.D. entry concerning his arrest are furnished. The right of an applicant to seek such information pertaining to his own criminal case, after the conclusion of the trial, by taking recourse of the RTI Act, cannot be said to be barred by any provision of the CrPC. "
Thus, in the light of the above decision, the Commission is not inclined to give any relief to the Appellant at this stage. As stated by the Respondent, the copy of the charge sheet will be provided to the Appellant once it is filed. The Commission however observes that the initial response of the PIO denying information to the Appellant u/s 8 (1)(h) without giving any reason as to how it would impede the process of investigation was not satisfactory and that efforts should be made to provide a proper response with necessary justifications in future.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3