Central Information Commission
Mr. Prof M Varaprasada Rao vs Cbi on 23 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000505 dated 22.4.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Prof. M. Varaprasada Rao
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Heard & Decision announced 23.7.'10
Facts:
By an application of 28.7.08 Prof. M. Varaprasada Rao of Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) applied to CPIO Shri Ashwani Kumar, SP (HQ), CBI seeking the following information:
"The Presenting Officer has filed Exhibit M-M-27 claimed as the English Translation of Telugu Conversation between the complainant and the accused officer during trap secretly recorded through a digital voice recorder. In this connection the following information may please be furnished under Sec. 6(1) of Right to Information Act.
1. The time and date when the content of DVR was transmitted into micro cassettes.
2. The time and date when the micro-cassette commenced played for the purpose of over hearing the Telugu Conversation, translating it and recording it into English.
3. The time and date when the process was completed and the 6- page hand written English translation recording completed.
4. TLO Sri S.S. Giri has not attested this record. Information if he was present at the venue when the micro-cassette was played and recording of Exhibit-27 - English translation was completed.
5. The name of the person who translated the Telugu version of the actual conversation / micro-cassette into English.
6. The record bears only one signature of officer of CBI forming part of the trap party. Mr. Hari Om Prakash, Inspector of Police, CBI, Bangalore. He is stated not knowing Telugu Language. Please furnish information stating the purpose for which he has signed.
7. The two independent witnesses had signed the record. Please give information that their signature was obtained as those who observed / overheard the entire process of transmitting contents of Telugu Conversation from DVR to the micro-cassette and playing back micro- cassette and preparing the English translation, as independent witness, without involving or participating materially in preparing the record (Exhibit M-27)."1
To this, Prof. M. Varaprasada Rao received a response only on 23/30.12.08 from Shri Narasimha Komar, SP, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru informing him as follows:
"It is informed that investigation of RC 15(A)/2004-Bir has been concluded and a criminal case has been instituted vide Special CC No. 74/05 against Prof. M. Varaprasada Rao u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act - 1988 is pending before XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions (Special) Judge for CBI case, Bengaluru. You are entitled for seeking information such as records, documents, reports, papers etc. u/s 6 of RTI Act 2005. The English translation of transcription of the audio record of telephonic conversation between Prof. M. V. Rao and Shri V. Venkateshwaralu, Manager (Technical Department M/s Radiant Cables Pvt. Ltd., Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, P-r/o No. 21-573, Parasupet, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh r/o No. 242, Chandragiri Colony, Safeelguru, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh (Exhibit-27) has been cited as an evidence in the aforesaid criminal case. These issues mentioned in the application can be raised before XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions (Special) Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore during the trial of the said criminal case. The matter is subjudice and the disclosure of the information sought by the applicant will adversely affect the prosecution of the case. Hence, the information is denied under Sec. 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Prof. Prasadarao has then moved an appeal on 29.12.08 pleading as follows:
"The information sought does not relate to court case filed by SP, CBI, ACB, Bangalore vide charge sheet dated 10.6.05. The Court has framed the charge. I had pleaded not guilty. The Hon'ble Court has also recorded this fact. Trial has not commenced."
On the response to his RTI application Prof. Varaprasada Rao has submitted as follows:
"My application was forwarded by CPIO, CBI Headquarters, New Delhi to CPIO, CBI, ACB Bangalore on 5.8.2008 vide his No. DPSPH2008/530/96/08/7/R1 Act/2005-SPHQ under Sec. 6(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005. In the normal course, response from CPIO CBI ACB Bangalore was due on or before 9.9.2008, if not ever earlier.2
As I could not secure the favour of a response from the CPIO, SP, CBI, ACB Bangalore, a reminder was addressed by me on 26.10.2008 to CPIO CBI Headquarters, New Delhi, which was followed by a second reminder on 27.11.2008. Thereupon, on 10.12.2008, CPIO CBI HQ, New Delhi sent a second communication under his No. DPSPH2008/725/96/08/7/ R1Act/2005-SPHQ to CPIO, CBI Bangalore for furnishing the information to me clearly quoting reference to his earlier letter No. DPSPH-2008/530/96/08/7/R1 Act/2005-SPHQ dated 5.8.2008."
Shri V.V. Laxmi Narayana, DIG, CBI, ACB Hyderabad allowed this appeal through his order of 15.1.09, as below:
"The information available with CBI Bangalore branch pertaining to the information sought by you under RTI Act is the English translation of Telugu conversation between the complainant and the accused officer translated on 27.10.2004, SP, CBI Bangalore (PIO) has been instructed to provide a copy of the same to you immediately. The other issues in appeal do not come under the definition of 'information' as provided under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
However, Prof. M. Varaprasada Rao has moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is respectfully prayed that Chief Commissioner, Central Information Commission to order CPIO, CBI, ACB Bangalore to furnish the information prayed for in RFIL."
This prayer has been grounded on the following plea:
"SP, CBI, ACB, Bangalore provided the same English version as filed in the court and not provided the information as requested in RTI. Aggrieved by the in applicable and untenable ground on which the information is rejected the applicant has chosen to prefer this 2nd Appeal before the Hon'ble Chief Commissioner, Central Information Commission."
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 23.7.2010. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Vishakhapatnam Prof. M. Varaprasada Rao Respondents at NIC Studio, Bengaluru Sh. R. Hitendra, SP, CBI 3 Shri Laxmi Narayana, Appellate Authority (Hyderabad)
- appeared at Bengaluru Respondent Shri Hitendra, SP, CBI Bengaluru submitted that the application of 28.7.08 of Prof. M. V. Prasada Rao was not received in the office of SP, CBI, Bangalore. The first intimation of the request was through the letter of 27.11.08, which was received in that office on 10.12.08; hence the response has been sent on 23.12.08, which is well within time. Appellant Prof. Rao submitted that the information ordered to be provided by Appellate Authority Shri Laxmi Narayana, DIG, CBI is not what he had asked for. Since the conversation was recorded in Telugu, the English translation was defective.
We then proceeded to examine each of the questions asked by Prof. Rao in his initial application, which generally deal with the method adopted for recording and translating the Telugu conversation between the complainant and the accused and not the English translation itself. Upon this, Shri Laxmi Narayana submitted that the entire record with regard to this case has been submitted to the Trial Court. The only information held by the SP, CBI is the English translation, a copy of which had been supplied to appellant Prof. Prasada Rao. He further submitted that together with the charge sheet all the copies of relevant documents submitted to the Court have also been provided to Prof. M.V. Prasadarao and, therefore, the respondent has nothing further to share with appellant Prof. Rao.
DECISION NOTICE It is agreed by all the parties that the matter is in fact before the Trial Court and a charge sheet has also been issued together with its implications in terms of information provided to the accused. However, it has also been made clear that the office of SP, CBI has no further information held on this account; all documents pertaining to this case having already been transferred to the Trial Court. The request for further information from CBI, therefore, cannot be met 4 since the information sought is not held or under the control of the SP, CBI Bengaluru. If, as appellant has contested in the hearing of his appeal, there are other records available on the manner and time in which the Telugu conversation was recorded and translated, these will only be now under the control of the Trial Court, to whom the file had been transferred. While the present appeal, therefore, is dismissed, it will be open to appellant Prof. Rao to approach the Trial Court with an RTI application u/s 6 (1) seeking the information sought by him.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 23.7.2010 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 23.7.2010 5