Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/000088
Name of Appellant : Sh. Virender Singh
Name of Respondent : Directorate of Forensic Science
M/o Home Affairs
Background
Sh. Virender Singh, the Appellant, filed an application dated 23.07.2009, under
the provisions of the RTI Act. 2005, seeking following information:
“1. What is the wroth and credibility of a sample either preserved or unpreserved,
which has been returned by the Laboratory after opening the same, due to any reason
and the same is being kept at a General Place for more than 15 days?
2. When the Laboratory returned back both the samples, one preserved and the
other preserved and the Preserved sample is being received by you again after 15
dyas, whether it is appropriate to conduct the test on the basis of the earlier blood
sample or a new blood sample is required?
3. When two blood samples are taken, one on floating paper and the other in the
bottle, whether the result of the both shall be same and also clarify whether it is
necessary to sent the results of both or not?
4. To know the Paternity and Maternity of a child, whether the samples of both are
required or the sample of either Father or Mother will be sufficient?
5. When a sample received by you is being opened and its testing is denied due to
any reason and it is returned, whether any mark, sign etc. is put on the same so that to
ensure that it may not be sent to you again?”
The CPIO / Director, Central Forensic Scientist Laboratory, Chandigarh replied to the
RTI application vide his letter dated 10.08.2009 as follows:
“1. The distinction between preserved and unpreserved sample in Forensic Science
in general is somewhat arbitrary. There is no precise division between what might be
considered as preserved and unpreserved. In fact it is interaction between a sample
and its environment that determines the preservation of any perishable item and hence
the purposes of the downstream applications/techniques have to be kept in mind.
2. The approach that is taken in a particular case is solely determined by the
sample that is made available to the investigator. Tests can be conducted on the
earlier blood sample, however if the required amount and type of information is not
recovered fresh blood samples should be made available.
3. Whether the blood has been taken on sterile paper as a dried stain or stored in a
liquid form in vial (with added anticoagulants), the genetic constituent of an individual
does not change. Hence it is not necessary to perform analysis and provide results on
both samples.
4. To know paternity of a child reference samples from both father and mother are
required. However paternity evaluation in motherless cases can be conducted. For
maternity cases reference sample of mother is required.
5. If samples is opened and is returned with or without analysis it is sealed and
bears laboratory seal impression for identification purposes.”
Not satisfied with the reply the Appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate
Authority (FAA)/ Chief Forensic Scientist, who, upheld the order of the CPIO. Aggrieved
with the response of the Respondent the Appellant has filed the present appeal before
the Commission.
2. The matter was heard on 6.04.2010.
3. Sh. Virender Singh, the Appellant was present.
4. Dr. S. K. Shukla, Director, CFSL, Chandigarh and Sh. Yoginder Kumar, SO,
DFS, MHA represented the Respondent Public Authority.
During the hearing the Respondent submits that most of the queries are in the
nature of seeking views and opinions of the Respondent which is not “information” in
terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 2005. However, the Respondent submit that they
have provided pointwise reply to each of the query. The Appellant on the other hand
states that though he is satisfied with response of the Respondent in respect to his
query at point no. 3, 4 & 5 of the RTI application, the replies to query no. 1 & 2 are,
however, evasive.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents the Commission finds
that the requisite information has been provided to the Appellant and there is no reason
to interfere in the response of the CPIO.
With this order the matter is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
7.04.2010