Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, Room No. 305 B-Wing,
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Kama Place
New Delhi
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001019
Name of Appellant : Sh. Vipin Kumar
(The Appellant was present along with
Adv. H.S. Saini)
Name of Respondent : Delhi Police, North Dist., Civil Lines
(Represented by Sh. Surjit Malik, ACP,
Sh. Ramavtar, S.I. and Sh. N. S.
Kharayat, SP)
The matter was heard on : 16.03.2011
ORDER
Sh. Vipin Kumar, the Appellant, filed an application dated 28.03.2010, seeking the
following information, from the PIO / Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North Dist.:
“1. Copy of the Draft Sanction in Reference of RCDAI2004A008 Dated
11.02.2004, sent to the then D.C.P. North by the C.B.I.
2. All the copies of corresponding letter exchanged between C.B.I. and the DCP
North in connection with draft sanction of FIR No. RCDAI2004A008 dated
11.02.2004.”
The PIO vide letter dated 23.04.2010, replied to the Appellant, as follows:
“1. It does not relate to North District Delhi.
2. The copy of letter No. 37573/SODCP/North(ACV) dated 8.11.2004 and letter
No. 41147/SODCP/North dated 15.12.2004 alongwith its enclosures are sent herewith.”
Not getting information to his satisfaction in response to his RTI application and
subsequent first appeal, the Appellant has filed the present appeal before the
Commission.
During the proceedings of the hearing on 22.02.2011 it emerged that the sought
for information pertained to a CBI case under the prevention of Corruption Act.
Therefore, in view of the fact that the sought for information pertained to a CBI Case, the
Commission sought the comments of the PIO, CBI for proper adjudication of the matter.
In pursuance to the directions of the Commission the Superintendent of Police
(SP), CBI (Anti Corruption Branch) and the officials of North Dist, were present during
the hearing. Sh. N. S. Kharayat, S.P. / CBI submits that the disclosure of the information
requested is likely to hamper the prosecution of offender in the ongoing trial of the case.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, and also
having regard to the facts and circumstance of the present case, the Commission is of the
considered view that the apprehension of the Respondent to the effect that divulgence of
information will impede the prosecution of offender, is justified. The Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in Mukesh Saini, M/o Defence has observed:
“Whether the respondents have apprehension or not is to be decided by the respondents
in the present facts and circumstances. The apprehension of the respondent is not
without any basis. In any case the prosecution of the offender is pending and has not
been complete, it cannot be inferred that divulgence of information will not impede the
prosecution of the offender. The respondents, therefore, are justified in claiming
exemption under Section 8(1)(h) from disclosure of information sought by the petitioner.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of
investigation has been completed as charge sheet has already been filed cannot be
accepted and is contrary to all the circumstances under which exemption can be claimed
under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
In view of the above, the information sought by the Appellant cannot be provided,
as the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
4.04.2011
Authenticated true copy
(S. Padmanabha)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Copy to:
1. Sh. Vipin Kumar
S/o Sh. Rameshwar
R/o D-2/253. Sector-20
Rohini
Delhi-110086
2. The Public Information Officer
Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I
North Dist., Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054
3. The Public Information Officer
Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti Corruption Branch,
Block No. 4, 1st Floor, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi
4. The Appellate Authority
Dy. Commissioner of Police,
North Dist., Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054