Central Information Commission
Shri Hawa Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 3 July, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00003 dated 3.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Hawa Singh
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Facts:
With two applications of 7.5.07 and 24.5.07, Shri Hawa Singh of Patel Nagar, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, CBI seeking the following information:
(1) "Kindly provide me copy of inquiries/ verifications made by Central bureau of investigation, in connection with alleged disproportionate assets of the undersigned and copy of the report in this regard."
(2) "Kindly provide me attested photocopies of Visitors Register maintained at Reception Counter of Block No. 3 CBI office w.e.f. 1.11.2004 to 20.11.2004 and complaint Diary Register of ACB for the said period."
To the first of these Shri Hawa Singh received a response dated 7.6.07 refusing the information sought as follows:
"During investigation of the case, searches were conducted at the residence of the accused Shri Hawa Singh, ACP. The searches led to the disclosure of assets including Rs. 9.5 lakhs in cash from his residence. The information sought is part of the investigation and exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005 is claimed 1 as the case is pending trial in the Court."
On the second request the response received by Shri Hawa Singh dated 30.5.07 was again a refusal u/s 8(1) (j). Shri Hawa Singh made a single appeal before the DIG CBI, ACB in both cases on 14.6.07 with separate pleas as follows:
(1) "In this regard it is submitted that the investigation of the case has been completed by the CBI and Challan filed in the court and in the court Smt. Mridula Shukla, Inspector, IO of the case has made a statement on 2.4.2007 that no case for 1 Emphasis ours 1 DA is under contemplation and the matter has been referred to the department for departmental action. That means that no investigation in the case is pending in CBI."
(2) "The exemptions claimed by the CPIO do not seem to be genuine."
In a detailed order of 27.7.07, made after transfer of the case from Shri D.C.Jain to whom it had been incorrectly addressed, the DIG, CBI, ACB, New Delhi has dismissed the appeal on both issues, as follows:
(1) "The contention of appellant is that as the DA angle is no longer pending with CBI, exemption cannot be claimed u/s 8 (1) (h). I have carefully considered the matter. The basis of the criminal proceedings against Shri Hawa Singh by CBI is the trap case which is pending trial. searches were conducted at the premises of the appellant in the said trap case and recovery of cash etc during the searches formed basis of probe into his disproportionate assets (DA). Thus the DA angle is interlinked to the trap case and cannot be segregated from the criminal case RC. dAI-2004-A-0046 which is pending trail in the Court. Further, developments related to DA angle have been place before the competent court and accused has also filed application before the Court for return of articles related to the DA angle. In the given facts and circumstances, the DA angle is an outcome of the case RC. DAI-2004-A-0046 which is pending trial. I, therefore, agree with the CO/ SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi invoking exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of RI Act, 2005 as the information sought could impede the process of prosecution against the appellant."
(2) "The information pertaining to visitor's register could be used by him in the trial of the said trap and would impede the process of his prosecution in a Court of law. Thus, in addition to the grounds given by CPIO/ SP, ACB, Delhi, I further hold that the information is denied by invoking exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act."
Appellant's prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"It is my humble prayer that I may please be provided the complete information under the signature of CPIO/ Appellate Authority along with copies of entire file Notings."2
The appeal was heard on 3.7.09. Only respondent Shri Sumit Sharan, SP, CBI, ACB is present. Appellant Sh. Hawa Singh had been informed by Notice dated 19.6.2009 regarding the hearing but he has opted not to be present.
Shri Sharan submitted that the case of alleged disproportionate assets against Shri Hawa Singh has now concluded and the Department will have no objection in providing the information sought in this matter to appellant Shri Hawa Singh. However, insofar as visitors register is concerned, Shri Sharan submitted that the CBI is an investigating agency, often investigating matters of considerable confidentiality. Visitors to the office, all of whom are required to register, could include sources of information or those assisting under assurance of confidentiality in these enquiries. Disclosure of the visitors register would, therefore, have the effect of compromising their security. He, however, submitted that if information regarding to the visit of any particular visitor is required, this could be provided.
DECISION NOTICE In his prayer before us Shri Hawa Singh has added a further request in seeking copies of file notings. This was not a part of the original application and this Commission is sitting only in appeal. Should appellant Sh. Hawa Singh require such information, he has to apply for it afresh and not at the stage of second appeal.
With regard to Shri Hawa Singh's application of 7.5.07, respondent Shri Sharan has agreed that this information can be provided. The copy of the report in regard to the investigation and enquiries in connection with alleged disproportionate assets owned by Sh. Hawa Singh will, therefore, be provided to appellant Shri Hawa Singh within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
3On the second issue of visitors register, in his appeal before us, in this case, however, neither SP, CBI nor DIG have pleaded exemption u/s 8(1) (g). Whereas CPIO, SP, CBI has denied the information being personal information, u/s 8(1) (j), the Appellate Authority has denied this u/s 8(1) (h) as impeding the process of prosecution. We agree that the Complaint Register cannot be disclosed in toto, with each request for any specific entry requiring to be considered on merit in relation to exemption from disclosure allowed under sub- sec (g) of Sec 8 (1). On the other hand, a visitor's register is a public document and, therefore, signing in that register becomes a public activity. A visitor, therefore, cannot claim invasion of privacy in case the fact of his/her visit is disclosed. Besides it has already been conceded by respondents in the hearing in second appeal that now there is no threat of impeding any process of investigation or prosecution. For this reason, we are not inclined at this stage to accept a further argument for non disclosure of information on this account. If the SP, CBI, ACB is of the view that some names of sources of information will be disclosed by the complete disclosure of the visitors register, such names may be deleted from the information provided by application of the principle of severability as permissible under sub sec. (1) of sec. 10. Other than that the remaining information regarding the visitors Register 1.11.'4 to 21.11.'04 will be disclosed to appellant within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. To this extent, the appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 3.7.2009 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 3.7.2009 5