ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000298/SG/12984
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000298/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal,
C-20, Sawaai Singh Highway,
Bani Park, JAIPUR -16.
Respondent: : PIO,
Office of the Dy. Inspr. Gen. of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption-I, Block No. 3, 7 floor,
CGO. Complex, Lodhi Raod,
New Delhi --110003.
RTI application: 17/05/2010
PIO reply: 10/06/2010
First appeal 12/07/2010
FAA order 30/07/2010
Second appeal 03/11/2010
Information sought:
FIR RC-AC3-2009 A0001 dated 12/6/2009 had been filed by CBI 1 ACU III on the orders of the
Rajasthan High Court. The chargesheet was filed at the CBI Jaipur Court on 4/2/2010. I want the
following information about it:
1. My statements had been taken during the period 18/8/2009 to 26/8/2009. I want a copy of my
statements and the action taken on these. I also want to know if my statements were included in
the chargesheet. If they were not included, reason for not including them.
2. Copies of all related actions including notesheets.
3. Action taken by CBI with respect to FIR.
4. Action taken by CBI of encroachment on land from 30/01/2009 to 02/02/2009.
PIO’s reply:
In RC AC3 2009 A0001, your statements were recorded by the IO on various dates and the documents
were also taken over from you. The statements and documents were found to be not relevant. However,
these statements/documents are part of Case Diaries which cannot be disclosed to anyone except as
provided u/s 172(3) of CRPC. The chargesheet has been filed in the court of Ld. Special Judge, Jaipur.
The information asked for are relating to the aforesaid pending prosecution case and. therefore, I am
convinced that disclosure of the same will impede the progress of prosecution. Hence the information is
denied under Section 8(1)(h) of R TI Act, 2005.,
Grounds for First appeal:
Not attached.
FAA order:
Page 1 of 3
I find that CPIO has replied that your statements and records submitted by you were not considered
relevant for the prosecution case and hence does not constitute relied upon documents. Therefore, he has
argued that disclosure of such documents in any other manner except that provided u/s. 172(3) Cr. PC
would impede the prosecution of offenders. Hence denial of information u/s. 8(1)(h) is justified.
Disclosure of information not relied upon by prosecution is general by section 172(3) of Cr.PC as
explained above and hence it has been correctly withheld.
The contentions mentioned in these paras are your own conclusions which do not fall in the category of
seeking any information. The CPIO has rightly withheld the information u/s. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005
and I find that in his letter dated 10.06.2010, the CPIO has given detailed justification for withholding the
information.
Ground for second appeal:
PIO is deliberately denying the information quoting exemptions. The FAA had also refused information
under exemptions of Section 8(1).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal;
Respondent : Absent;
The appellant had sought information about an FIR filed by him. The PIO had refused to give
information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The PIO has not given any
justification to show how disclosing the information would impede the process of prosecution.
The Respondent has not been able to establish that disclosing the information would impede the process
of prosecution. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of “information which would impede
the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.
Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114/2007-
“13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the
exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly
construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8,
exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the
prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a
ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory
reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons
should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on
some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven
for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal
interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in
Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on
the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in
their terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2)
SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy
1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a
judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.”
As per Section 19(5) “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was
justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, who denied the request.”
Page 2 of 3
Denial of a citizen’s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing a prosecution
cannot be used to deny citizens’ rights. In view of this, the Commission does not accept the denial of
information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
As per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act in any appeal proceeding the onus to prove that the denial of
information was justified is on the PIO who denied the information. Based on the PIO’s reply and the
order of the FAA the Commission does not see any definite case being made out how disclosing the
information sought by the Appellant will impeded the prosecution. The PIO’s contention is not upheld.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information sought by the appellant, as
per available records, before 10 July 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) AN
Page 3 of 3