Central Information Commission
Shri G.P.S. Rana vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (Dcp), ... on 14 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00626 dated 8-6-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri G.P.S. Rana
Respondent: Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP)
Economic Offences Wing
FACTS
By an application of 16-3-07 Shri G.P.S. Rana of Vishal Enclave, New Delhi applied to the Addl. Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crime), received in the office of DCP (Economic Offence Wing) on 26-3-07, seeking certified copies of the following documents:
"(A) The Certified Copy of the letter bearing Ref. No. ACP/AFS/EOW/ Crime Branch dated 21.11.2006 sent by SI Ajay Kumar to the Chief Prosecutor (Crime), Prosecution Branch, Delhi regarding the proposal for revision against discharge of accused GPS Rana and Others in FIR No. 236/2000, P. S. Inder Puri, New Delhi.
(B) The Certified Copy of the Opinion dated 23.11.2006 of the Public Prosecutor in the matter of discharge of accused G.P.S. Rana and Others in FIR No. 236/2000, P. S. Inder Puri, New Delhi.
(C) The Certified Copy of the Opinion dated 11.2.2006 of the Chief Public Prosecutor and Director of Prosecution in the matter of discharge of accused G. P. S. Rana and Others in FIR No. 236/2000, P. S. Inder Puri, New Delhi.
(D) The Certified Copy of the action taken on the Opinion dated 23.11.2006 of the Public Prosecutor in the matter of discharge of accused G.P.S. Rana and Others in FIR No. 236/2000, P.S. Inder Puri, New Delhi by the DCP (EOW)."
To this he received a response from PIO Shri Prabhakar, DCP (EW Wing) Crime branch, New Delhi on 26-4-07 as follows:
"The State has filed a Criminal Revision Petition in Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the orders dated 2.11.2006 of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Sunil Chaudhary, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. As the matter is sub-judice, the sought documents cannot be provided, as it may impede the process of your prosecution. Thus the sought documents are covered in 1 the exemption clause 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Also the opinion given by Public Prosecutor to the investigating agency is fiduciary in nature. The Public Prosecutor is not a party/ witness in the case. The sought documents are also covered in the exemption clause 8(1) (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Not satisfied with this response appellant Shri Rana moved his first appeal before JCP (Crime) on 30-4-07. In his order of 25-5-07 Shri Ranjit Narain, JCP (Crime) and 1st Appellate Authority has held as follows:
"Having carefully gone through the contents of appeal and material available on record, it is found that the information sought relates to the revision petition filed by the State in the Delhi High Court against the discharge of the appellant. It is a fact that the revision petition is filed with the consultation of the Prosecution branch. Such opinions are obtained in fiduciary relationship, which carries element of trust and confidence. Since the referred petition is filed against the appellant, furnishing the sought information at this stage can hamper the prosecution in all probability. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi has already issued the notice to the respondent i.e. appellant for hearing fixed for 19.7.2007. Being the matter sub- judice the appellant should approach the Hon'ble Court for supplying the referred documents instead of resorting to the RTI Act.
In the above facts and circumstances the stand of PIO is found correct and justified as the information sought is exemp0ted under the section of 8"(1)(e) and (h) of the RTI Act."
Appellant has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"i. To direct the appellate authority, Mr. Ranjit Narain, Joint C. P. (Crime), New Delhi to provide the information requested vide Appeal bearing Ref. No. 7302/2006-07/Gen dated 30.4.2007.
ii. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Members of Central Information Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the appeal."
The issue before us, therefore, is the application of Section 8 (1) (e) and (h). The appeal was heard on 14-11-2008. Following are present.
Appellant Shri G.P.S. Rana 2 Respondent Shri K.K. Vyas, DCP / EOW Shri K.K. Vyas, DCP (EOW) submitted that the information sought relates to the views of Director (Prosecution) which are fiduciary in nature and also if disclosed, would impede the process of prosecution at present being pursued in the High Court of Delhi under the criminal revision petition. We, therefore, examined the information sought in the original application of Shri GPS Rana point by point. Respondent Shri K.K. Vyas could not explain how disclosure of information sought at (A) would impede prosecution, or indeed violate any fiduciary relationship.
On information sought at points (B) and (C), however, he submitted that this information was held in trust and therefore came to the core of fiduciary information. Similarly, the information sought at point (D), stemming at it does from (B) and (C) would also constitute a part of that information. Besides, the opinion given could impede the prosecution.
Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution has been launched against the opinion of the Director of Prosecution and therefore, answer to (D) now pleaded by respondent is incorrect.
DECISION NOTICE Since neither Section 8 (1) sub Section (e) or (h) can be said to be applied to the information sought at (A) which is the certified copy of the letter bearing Ref. No. ACP/AFS/EOW/ Crime Branch dated 21.11.2006 sent by SI Ajay Kumar to the Chief Prosecutor (Crime), Prosecution Branch, Delhi regarding the proposal for revision against discharge of accused GPS Rana and Others in FIR No. 236/2000, P. S. Inder Puri, New Delhi, this information will now be provided to appellant by PIO Shri K.K. Vyas within one week of the date of this decision notice.
On issues at (B) and (C however, the opinions, copies of which have been sought, will be submitted to us on 1st December, 2008 at 10.00 a.m. to 3 enable us to satisfy ourselves as to the exemption from disclosure. Based on our decision with regard to these two issues, we will also issue orders with regard to (D). It is clarified that during inspection of these records treated as confidential by Economic Offence Wing, appellant Shri GPS Rana will not be present. He may, however, be present after the inspection is complete and over, to hear our Decision.
The Appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. For the remaining issues parties will appear before us in the manner directed on 1st December, 2008 at 10.30 a.m. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 14-11-2008 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 14-11-2008 4