Central Information Commission
Mr. Vinod Kumar vs Cbi on 27 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000503 dated 22.4.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Date of hearing : 16.7.2010
Decision announced : 27.7.2010
FACTS
In our decision notice in appeal no. CIC/WB/A/2007/01087 announced on 29.12.2008 between the same parties, we had decided as follows: -
"The case is remanded to CPIO Shri Vineet Agarwal, SP, CBI who will re-examine it in light of the above decision of the Delhi High Court and give a ruling in the matter within ten working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. If not satisfied with the information so provided, appellant Shri Vinod Kumar will be free to move a fresh 2nd appeal before us as per section 19 (3)."
The ruling of the High Court referred to in this decision notice was W.P. (C) No. 3114/2007-Shri Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. Upon this Shri Vineet Agarwal, SP, CB, ACB in his order of 13.1.2009 found as follows: -
5. "FR-I is the report submitted by the investigating officer after collection of the evidence. Similarly FR-II is the comments of the law officer on the FR-I. The various facts written in FR-I are invariably repeated in one form or the other in FR-II.
6. The investigation of the case in CBI is carried out as per the explicit provision of Cr.PC. The investigating officer carries out the day-to-day investigation and the gist of the investigation is recorded in the case diaries. The final report submitted by the investigating officer to his superior police officers is culled out from these case diaries. These case diaries are not public documents and the accused does not have any right to peruse the same. It is a settled law that unless the case diaries have been used to refresh the memory in the Court of law, the accused is not entitled for perusing the case diaries.
7. Since the FR-I and FR-II are culled out of the case diaries, it would be only fair that this information should not be provided to the accused as it shall impede the process of trial."
Upon this appellant Shri Vinod Kumar has moved a second appeal before us as per section 19 (3) with the following prayer: -
"a. allow this second appeal;
b. Set aside the order dated 13.1.2009 received on
24/25.1.2009 hearing bearing CBI ID No. 251/RTI- 41/2007-DLI, passed by Shri Vineet Agarwal, CPIO/ Supdt. Of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi;
c. Consequently direct the Respondent/ CPIO to provide the copies of FR-I and FR-II in RC No. 42 (A)/95 to the appellant.
d. Impose penalty and disciplinary action against the Respondent under section 20 of the Act;
e. Award cost of proceedings to be recovered from the Respondent;"
The issue now is the disclosure of the Final Reports I and II of the investigating agency in the case concerning appellant Shri Vinod Kumar. The appeal was heard on 16-7-2010. Only Shri Sumit Sharan, SP, CBI is present. Although informed of the date of hearing through our letter of 11-6-2010 appellant Shri Vinod Kumar opted not to be present.
Respondent Shri Sumit Sharan submitted that the FRs are not part of the documents which are submitted in the Court, these are only the documents which constitute a summary of the case diaries in order to prepare decision for prosecution. These documents are, therefore, held in confidence by the prosecuting agency, which in this case is the CBI. In this context, Shri Sumit Sharan cited Sec. 172(3) of Cr.P.C. 1973, contending that these are debarred from disclosure under the law.
DECISION NOTICE Sec. 172(3) of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.
(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 officers, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) shall apply.
Upon this, it is clear that the Cr.P.C. specifically debars the disclosure of case diaries. Any deviation allowed will necessarily impede the process of prosecution. It is open to appellant Shri Vinod Kumar to seek access to these records under the specific provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before the Trial Court Under the circumstances, the appeal of Shri Vinod Kumar is dismissed.
Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chambers on this 27th day of July, 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 27-7-2010 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 27-7-2010