CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00219 dated 16.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri S. P. Gupta
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) Economic Offences Wing
Decision Announced 13.7.'09
Facts
:
By an application of 20.10.07 Shri S.P. Gupta of Barakhamba Road, New
Delhi applied to the DCP (Crime) PHQ with 526 questions relating to the
following:
“All the following questions are in respect of the FIR No. 90/2000
PS Connaught Place, New Delhi – VLS Finance Ltd. vs. Mr. S.P.
Gupta & Others.”
To this he received a response dated 22.11.07 from Shri K. K. Vyas, PIO &
Addl. DCP, Economic Offences Wing (EOW) as below:
“It is to inform that the case FIR No. 90/2000 registered on the
complaint of Shri Harsh Alagh, authorized representative of M/s
VLS Finance Ltd., was investigated by the Economic Offences
Wing of Delhi Police. After the completion of the investigation, the
charge sheet of the case u/s 420/406/409, 468/471/467-A/120-B
IPC was filed in the Court of Shri Sunil Choudhary, MM (now Sh. D.
K. Sharma, MM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Copy of the
charge-sheets has already been provided to you being the accused
in this case. The Ld. MM has taken the cognizance of the case.
You have also filed a petition vide Crl. M. 2465/2003 in Cr. M. (M)
911/2003 in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for the quashing of FIR
where next date of hearing has been fixed for 7.12.2007.
Since the 526 queries, replies of which have been sought by you
through the instant application under the RTI Act pertain to pre-
registration investigation, post-registration investigation and trial of
the case FIR No. 90/2000 PS Connaught Place, the same cannot
be provided being exempted u/s 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act as it would
impede the process of prosecution in the trial court and adversely
effect the outcome of above mentioned writ petitions. The queries
raised by you, in fact, should be raised during the Trial of the above
mentioned case and RTI is not the appropriate forum for the same.”
1
Aggrieved by this Decision, Shri Gupta moved an appeal before the Addl.
CP, EOW dated 27.11.07 pleading as follows:
“There is nothing in those questions, which would impede (repeat
impede) the process of prosecution as those are part of the
investigation being integral part of the process of framing he charge
sheet already filed. It must be appreciated only that information
which would impede the process as per the said clause can be
withheld. The prosecution in the court can only be on the basis of
charge sheet framed after enquiries and on which not only the court
but the prosecutor also relies. All such enquiries necessarily have
to be part of the charge sheet and if something has been left out in
the charge sheet then the IO is duty bound to bring on record for a
fair trial. However, if some enquiries have been withheld in the
charge sheet and exposure of the same now may vitiate the
charges already framed then definitely the same has to be
considered delinquent of the IO for the reasons to be ascertained
by his superiors. Replies to such questions cannot under any
circumstances, will impede the said process as mentioned u/s 8(1)
(h) of the Act.
Since the information sought is not covered under any specific
exemption given in the section 8 of the RTI Act, the applicant being
aggrieved by the said order, this appeal u/s 19(1) is being preferred
by the applicant to your good self.”
Shri S. K. Gupta also cited the decision of this Commission in
CIC/AT/A/2006/00074 of 28.2.07 Mrs. Gurinder Kaur Gill vs. Dy.
Commissioner of Police (EOW) Delhi. However, in a decision of 24.12.07 Shri
S. B. K. Singh, Addl. Commissioner of Police, EOW directed somewhat
summarily as follows:
“I fully agree with the reply of PIO conveyed to you vide No.
6728/SO/DCP/EOW dated 22.11.07. It is also exempted under
Sec. 8(1) (h) of RTI Act.”
This is despite the fact that in an earlier decision of 7.12.07 on cases
relating to three FIRs one of which is 19/2000 PS Connaught Place, a copy of
which has been submitted by appellant Shri Gupta along with his 2nd appeal the
same Shri S. B. K. Singh had directed as follows:
“The documents and the information, which do not disclose the
identity of source of information, should be provided by the PIO.
2
Each & every question should be specifically answered and
reasons for not providing should be mentioned against each
question. The case diaries & its details & the documents in the
police file which are privileged documents cannot be provided as it
may impede the prosecution. The PIO is directed to re-examine
the matter and reply on the above lines.”
This then became the issue in the second appeal before us in which Shri
Gupta has prayed as follows:
“Since the information sought is not covered under any
specific exemption given in the section 8 of the RTI Act, the
applicant being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal u/s
19(3) is being preferred by the applicant to your good self.
It has been explained to the applicant that his appeal is
squarely covered by the decision of the CIC in the case of Mrs.
Gurinder Kaur Gill vs. DCP (EOW) Delhi in appeal no.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00074 dated 2.8.07. And is also covered by the
Judgment of the Delhi High Court in WP(C ) No. 3114/2007 in
the case of Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner
and Others.”
The appeal was heard on 13.7.2009. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri P. K. Dhingra (representing Sh. S.P.Gupta)
Respondents
Shri T. P. Singh, ACP / EOW
Shri Udham Singh, Inspr. EOW
Sh. M. K. Mishra, S.I. / EOW
Sh. Sudhir Kumar, SI / EOWShri P. K. Dhingra submitted a Power of Attorney dated 10.7.09 from Shri
S. P. Gupta authorizing Shri P. K. Dhingra, Chartered Accountant to represent
Shri Gupta before this Commission. This document has been placed on record.
Shri T. P. Singh, ACP, EOW submitted that there was no contradiction
between the orders of Appellate Authority of 7.12.07 and 24.12.07 with the latter
having been arrived at on the basis of compliance with the orders of 7.12.07 and
arising from examination of information sought therein. He also submitted that all
copies of material relied upon by the prosecution in the present case have been
3
provided to appellant Shri Gupta together with the charge-sheet. With regard to
appellant Shri S. P. Gupta three charge-sheets have been filed including in the
case of FIR 19/2000 PS Connaught Place and the fourth is under investigation.
Moreover, whereas the information sought by appellant Sh. Gupta through all
526 questions seeks an affirmation or negation he is now asking also for certain
documents.
Shri P. K. Dhingra representing Shri Gupta submitted that what he is
seeking is documents that would enable him to defend his case listed in the
charge-sheet, which in his view is without merit.
DECISION NOTICE
As we have mentioned above, the decision of Appellate Authority Shri S. B.
K. Singh, Addl. CP (EOW) is not a reasoned order and decidedly summary.
Although ACP would have us believe that the issues raised by appellant have as
a mater of fact been considered, the order not being a speaking order does not
bear this out. ACP Shri T. P. Singh has also submitted that the orders of Hon’ble
Ravinder Bhat J. in Bhagat Singh vs. CIC in WPC No.3114/2007, the definitive
ruling on the application of Sec 8(1) (h) have been issued subsequent to the
reply given by PIO to appellant Shri Gupta.
Taking into account all the above contentions, we come to the conclusion
that the order of Appellate Authority Shri S. B. K. Singh does not reflect any
consideration by him of the above issues. Moreover, if the case has now been
charge-sheeted and is under prosecution, much of the information sought by
appellant will also now be the property of the Court even though it may be
physically held by DCP EOW. In such case access to such information will have
to be provided by the public authority holding the information which in this case
would be the trial court to which the questions require to be transferred. Under
the circumstances the order of 24.12.07 of Shri S. B. K. Singh, Appellate
4
Authority and Addl. Commissioner of Police is set aside. Shri S. B. K. Singh
will now consider the matter afresh after giving appellant Shri S. P. Gupta
an opportunity to be heard and arrive at a decision within fifteen working
days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice passing a speaking order
in which all the issues discussed above will be considered and decided upon.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13.7.2009
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
13.7.2009
5