Mr.P C Singh vs Ministry Of Railways on 9 June, 2010

                               Central Information Commission


                                                                                           CIC/AD/A/2010/000552
                                                                                               Date: 9th June, 2010

Name of the Appellant                  :              Mr. P.C. Singh
Name of the Public Authority       :              Western Railway


Background:
   1. Mr.  P C Singh filed an RTI application on 05.05.2009. He  stated that he was arrested by the 
         CBI/   ACB   for   accepting   illegal   gratification.   He   sought   various   documents   regarding   the 

         Prosecution   Sanction   request   letters   and   other   documents   received   from   the   CBI/ACB 

         regarding the same along with the exact dates on which the prosecution sanction was received 

         and was dispatched to the CBI. The PIO in his letter dated 20.05.2009 provided the information 

         regarding the dates of dispatch of the prosecution sanction and denied  supply of copies of the 

         documents  sought   against  points  2­5  of   the  RTI   application   stating  that   the   disclosure   may 

         prejudice and affect the pending court case. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a 

         first appeal with the First Appellate Authority on 03.06.2009 stating that no satisfactory reply has 

         been given by the PIO and that the information was required by him as he wanted to prepare 

         his defence and further stated that the investigation in the matter was over and hence providing 

         the documents would not impede the process of investigation. On not receiving any reply from 

         the First Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 

         28.08.2009   requesting   the   Commission   to   provide   him   with   the   information   along   with   a 

         Compensation   of   Rs.   10,000   Under   Section   19(8)   B   for   the   harassment   suffered   by   the 

         Appellant because of the PIO and the Appellate Authority and for the expenditure to be incurred 

         for traveling to Delhi for the hearing.



    2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit  scheduled the hearing for 9th June, 2010. 


    3. Mr.   Pramashivam­   APIO   &   Security   Commissioner,   Mr.   S.D   Sharma   OS   RTI   Cell   and   Mr. 
         Shailesh Thakur, Head Clerk Security Department represented the Public Authority and were 

         heard through Video Conferencing.



    4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.

Decision:
         5.   The Commission noted that in the given case, the Appellant is seeking the copies of the
             draft sanction letter which was sent by CBI along with other documents providing the
             necessary evidence for conducting the prosecution. During the hearing the Respondent
             submitted that in the instant case is under trial in the CBI Court and that disclosure of
             information would impede the process of prosecution of the offender.
        .

6. On careful consideration of the submissions on record and after noting that the Appellant has 
himself admitted in his appeal to the Commission that the case is under trial in the Special Court 

of Mumbai,     denies the disclosure of information at this stage to the Appellant as   it would 

impede the process of prosecution of offender. 

7. With regard to the Appellant’s complaint that there is contradiction in the  replies given by the 
PIO to him and to the Appellate Authority, the PIO stated that he is not aware where the case 

rests at this stage­ whether the investigation is still going on or whether the case is pending trial 

in the CBI court as the case is with the CBI. The Commission in this connection   holds that 

whether the CBI   investigation is still going on or the case is   pending trial in the CBI Court, 

exemption from disclosure  under 8(1)(h) will apply in both cases as giving information at either 

stage will impede the process of investigation/prosecution. 

   8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(Annanpurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated True Copy:

 
 (G. Subramanian)
 Deputy Registrar 

Cc:

1.   Mr. P C Singh
       Sub­inspector/RPF, Sr. DSC/ RPF Office,
       Mumbai Central Rly Station, Western Rly,
       Mumbai, 400008

2.   The Public Information Officer
       Western Railway, HQ. Office,
       Churchgate,
       Mumabi­400020 

3.   The Appellate Authority
       Western Railway, HQ. Office,
       Churchgate, 
       Mumabi­400020 

4.   Officer In­charge, NIC

5.   Press E Group, CIC