CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000093
Appellant : Shri Indrasan Prashad
Public Authority : N.H.R.C.
(through : Shri A.K. Parashar, Deputy Registrar and Shri
J.K. Srivastav, Deputy Director, (PIO).
Date of hearing : 19.04.2010
Date of Decision : 19.04.2010
Facts
:-
The matter, in short, is that appellant’s son-in-law, Shri Gorakh Nath was
physically belaboured on 16.6.2007 by certain villagers belonging to a village falling in
the jurisdiction of Galriha PS of District Gorakhpur, thinking that he was a thief. On
receipt of this information, the local police had taken Gorakhnath to a hospital in
Gorakhpur town but as per the allegation of the complainant, no proper treatment was
arranged for him. This resulted in his death two days later i.e. on 18.6.2007.
2. In this connection, vide his RTI application dated 28.4.2009, the appellant had
requested for information on a number of paras, specifically requesting for a copy of the
report sent to NHRC by CB, CID, Uttar Pradesh through the Govt. of U.P. The CPIO
vide letter dated 8.7.2009 had informed the appellant that objections were being called
for from the Government of Uttar Pradesh under section 11(1) of the RTI Act in this
regard. Subsequently, vide letter dated 18.12.2009, the CPIO had informed the appellant
that in view of the objections filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government, the information
could not be provided to him under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. The appellant had also agitated this matter before AA, who vide order dated
30.10.2009, had informed the appellant that objections from the Government of Uttar
Pradesh were awaited.
4. The present appeal is directed against the order of CPIO.
5. Heard on 19.04.2010. Appellant present. The Public Authority is represented by
the officers named above. Shri Parashar produces a copy of the report of CB, CID, Uttar
Pradesh which is perused. The report contains the outcome of investigation in case FIR
No. 453/07 registered at Police Station Gulriha, District Gorakhpur (UP). The
concluding para of the report mentions that after due investigation, a charge sheet has
been filed against the accused persons named in the FIR under section 147/323/304 IPC
in the competent court.
6. The question before us is whether the report can be denied to the appellant under
section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As mentioned above, the CPIO has followed the
procedure prescribed under section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The Government of Uttar
Pradesh informed the CPIO vide their letter dated 4.9.2009 that the requested information
was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act whereupon the CPIO
refused to disclose the requested information. It is trite that FIR is a public document and
falls in public domain. The police arrives at a final conclusion in the investigation of the
criminal case after following the procedure prescribed in Cr. PC by way of recording
statements of witnesses, collecting documents and seeking expert opinion in cases, where
necessary. The final report is filed in the concerned court in the form of a charge sheet or
closure report, as the case may be. After the filing of the charge sheet, the concerned
court hears the matter in an open court which can be attended by any person, including
those who have no concern with the case, when the court has not specifically excluded
any individual from the open hearing. Needless to say, the open hearing implies the
disclosure of the identity of the accused persons as well as charges against them. It
would, thus, appear that the entire procedure of criminal trial falls in public domain.
DECISION
7. It is to be noted that the appellant is requesting for a copy of the report prepared
by CB CID UP. Invocation of section 8(1)(j) in the matter in hand is subject to over-rule,
if the larger public interest so demands. In the matter in hand, the appellant’s son-in-law
died an unnatural death in very unfortunate circumstances. He has already got a copy of
the report prepared by Shri Udai Singh, Addl. SP, Kushinagar in this regard. We see no
good reason to deny him a copy of the report of the CB, CID, UP for the reasons
mentioned herein above, more so, when the investigation has already been completed. In
this view of the matter, the order of the CPIO is set aside and he is hereby directed to
provide a copy of the report of CB, CID, UP, to the appellant, free of cost, in 03 weeks
time.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma )
Central Information Commissioner
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.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. The CPIO,
National Human Rights Commission,
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri Indrasan Prasad,
s/o late Shri Ram Saran,
3514, Jawahar Colony, Faridabad,
Haryana.
