{"id":20839,"date":"2009-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-04T18:38:57","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T13:08:57","slug":"ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009<\/div>\n
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                  Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00181 dated 19-2-2008\n                    Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Ms. Hema D'Souza\nRespondent:          Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) Vigilance\n\n\n                             Date of Decision 20.7.'09\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      By an application of 27.9.2006 address to Addl. Secretary, Home
\nDepartment, GNCT, Delhi Ms. Hema D’Souza sought the following
\ninformation:\n<\/p>\n
      “a.      Please provide the names and designations of all the
\n               officials who handled\/ enquired into my complaint.
\n      b.       Please intimate the periods when the file was handled
\n               with which officer and the action taken by that official
\n               during that period.<\/p>\n
      c.       Please intimate the response provided\/ action taken in
\n               pursuance to letter from O\/o Dy. Secy (grievances) CMO,
\n               GNCTD,       No.    CMO\/PGC        (E)\/2006\/70539    dated
\n               14.2.2006. Copy enclosed as Annexure I.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      d.        Please intimate the response\/ action taken to the
\n               complainant’s letter dated 22nd February 2006 copy
\n               enclosed as Annexure II.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      e.       Please intimate the response provided\/ action taken in
\n               pursuance to the letter from O\/o Dy. Secy (Grievances)
\n               CMO, GNCTD No. CMO\/PGC (E)\/2006\/72029\/DSG-127
\n               dated 13.3.2006. Copy enclosed as Annexure III.
\n      f.       Please intimate the response\/ action taken to the
\n               complainant’s letter wherein the allegations have been
\n               substantiated\/ clarified vide letter dated 08th May 2006.
\n               Copy enclosed as Annexure IV.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      g.       Please intimate the response provided\/ action taken in
\n               pursuance to the letter from O\/o Dy. Secy (Grievances)
\n               CMO,            GNCTD,              No.         CMO\/PGC
\n               (E)\/2006\/80324\/CMO\/DSG\/24127            dated   18.8.2006.
\n               Copy enclosed as Annexure V.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      h.       Please intimate whether the O\/o Home Secretary has
\n               taken up the complaint with Forensic Science Laboratory,
\n               as is directly under the Principal Secretary Home,
\n               GNCTD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      i.       Please intimate if the complaint has been taken up with
\n               the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
        j.     Please intimate as why the complainant has not been
\n              given an opportunity to explain\/ present fats, in person,
\n              with regards to allegations against Forensic Science
\n              Laboratory, if there existed any ambiguity\/ discrepancy in
\n              her complaint\/ subsequent written clarifications.
\n       k.     Inspection of the relevant\/ enquiry file(s), record of
\n              communications, in form of letters, facsimile, email,
\n              documents, reports, papers, material in electronic form of
\n              electronic records or any other records, pertaining to the
\n              complaint\/ statements\/ notations\/ enquiry with regards to
\n              captioned complaint.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       l.     Copy of relevant documents from relevant\/ enquiry file(s)
\n              record of communications, in form of letters, facsimile,
\n              email, documents, reports, papers, material in electronic
\n              form or electronic records or any other records, after
\n              inspection of aforementioned files\/ document, pertaining
\n              to the complaint\/ statements\/ notations\/ enquiry with
\n              regards to captioned complaint.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This was forwarded to the Addl. Secretary, Home Department by the
\nCustomer Care Centre where it was submitted. But on not receiving a
\nresponse Ms. Hema D’Souza moved an appeal on 20.11.2006 before Shri O.
\nP. Kelkar, Principle Secretary, Home Department. This appeal was forwarded
\nto the Commissioner of Police and Director (FSL), GNCT Delhi by Shri K. R.
\nMendiratta, Deputy Secretary, Home directing him “to send the reply in
\nrespect of the queries raised pertaining to your department directly to the
\napplicant within 7 days under intimation to this department positively”.\n<\/p>\n
       On an appeal against the order of 12.5.06 of Dy. Secretary (Home)
\ndirecting Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Director, SFL, GNCT Delhi
\n” to send the reply s quoted above we had on 10.7.07 decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “From the facts above, it appears that it is a case of malafide
\n       denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the
\n       responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the
\n       orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the
\n       Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to
\n       the First Appellate Authority to ensure that its orders under
\n       section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested
\n       information furnished in terms of the order so passed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In the meantime, however, by a letter of 22.12.06 the DCP (EOW), to
\nwhom this matter had been transferred on 11.12.06, forwarded the request to<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span>
\n DCP (Vigilance). The DCP (Vig) then sent a detailed response to appellant
\nMs. Hema D’Souza on 25.1.07 point wise but concluding as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “Copy of enquiry report cannot be furnished to you as per
\n           section 8 (1) (e) (g) of RTI Act, 2005 as these persons have
\n           had their depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence
\n           during the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens
\n           who cooperate with the law enforcement authorities need to
\n           be protected, as was held by CIC in the case of Vinod Kr.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Sharma      vs.    Delhi    Police   in    case     File   No.
\n           CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00373 dated 23.11.2006.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this Ms. Hema D’Souza moved an appeal before the Addl.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Commissioner of Police – HQ Shri R. K. Upadhyaya with which he has
\nappended a statement under the following heads:\n<\/p>\n
      Q. Information               Response     from       Reasons        for
\n      No. sought\/ questions        PIO-Annexure II         appeal-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          in     application-                              Annexure III\n          Annexure\n\n<\/pre>\n
      Appellant Ms D’Souza’s objection, however, is to the answers to the
\nfinal paragraph as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      1.    Copy of relevant      Document of the       1.     As        in
\n            documents from        relevant enquiry      aforementioned, k.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            relevant\/ enquiry     files and other
\n            file(s) record of     documents             2. Provision u\/s 8
\n            communications,       cannot          be    (1) (g) (e), not
\n            in form of letters,   furnished to you      applicable        as
\n            facsimile, email,     u\/s 8 (1) (g)(e)(h)   decision as held in;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n            documents,            of the RTI Act.       a. Shri Ajit Kar vs.\n            reports, papers,                            Shri Bhim Sain\n            material         in   Copy of enquiry       Bassi, Jt. CP SR,\n            electronic form or    report cannot be      CIC\/AT\/A\/\n            electronic            furnished to you      2006\/00499, 467 &\n            records or any        as per section 8      469.\n            other     records,    (1) (g) (e) of RTI    b. Smt. Chanchal\n            after inspection      Act, 2005, as         Goel Vs DCP NW,\n            of                    these      persons    CIC\/AT\/ A\/ 06\/\n            aforementioned        have had there        00338, dated 20th\n            files\/ documents,     dispositions          Oct, 06.\n            pertaining to the     recorded in good      c. Shri Gurcharan\n            complaint\/            faith    and     in   Singh vs Shri Anil\n            statement\/            confidence            Shukla, DCP, SW,\n            notations\/            during the course     CIC\/AT\/A\/       06\/\n            enquiry        with   of enquiry. The       00343 dated 20th\n            regards          to   identities of such    Oct, 06.\n            captioned             citizens       who    d. Smt. Hema\n\n\n                                         3<\/span>\n            complaint.           cooperate    with    D'Souza\n                                law enforcement      CIC\/AT\/A\/06\/\n                                authorities need     00464 dated     3rd\n                                to be protected      January 2007.\n                                as was held by\n                                CIC in the case\n                                of   Vinod    Kr.\n                                Sharma vs. Delhi\n                                Police in case\n                                File          no.\n                                CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/0\n                                0373        dated\n                                23.11.2006\n\n<\/pre>\n
      Appellate Authority Shri R. K. Upadhyaya, Addl. Commissioner of
\nPolice (HQ), however, has not dwelt on this detail and has summarily
\ndisposed of the appeal in his order of 13.3.2006, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “It has been found that PIO\/ Vig have already provided you all
\n      the information that could be provided to you under the
\n      Provisions of RTI Act, 2005. There are no grounds in the appeal
\n      to interfere with the orders of PIO\/Vig. The appeal is thus
\n      rejected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In her appeal before us Ms. Hema D’Souza has pleaded as follows:
\n      “No response, whatsoever, has been received from CPIO,
\n      FSL, although the matter has been brought to the notice of
\n      the First Appellate Authority, vide fax dated 17.8.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      CPIO DCP\/ Vigilance, however, vide her response dated
\n      25.1.2007, denied inspection and copies u\/s 8(g) (h) (e).
\n      Pursuant to appeal, FAA Vigilance, Delhi Police, upheld the
\n      impugned decision of CPIO DCP\/ Vigilance, vide his
\n      decision dated 13.3.2007.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The appeal was heard on 9.7.2009. The following are present:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Appellant
\n                   Shri M. D’Souza
\n             Respondents
\n                   Sh. Parvinder Singh, ACP (VIg) \/ APIO
\n                   Sh. Vineet Kumar, OSD (Home)
\n                   Dr. V. K.Gupta, Director, F.S.L.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   Sh. M. N. Tiwari, DCP (Vig) \/ PIO<\/p>\n
      Shri M. D’Souza presented letter of authority from appellant Ms. Hema
\nD’Souza, which has been placed on record. Shri M. L. Tiwari, DCP (V)
\nsubmitted that disclosure of the Enquiry Report, which contains the<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span>
\n statements of sources and witnesses, would compromise exemption u\/s
\n8(1)(g).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       We find that through the response of the PIO of 26.1.07, the
\nrequirement of our Decision of 10.7.07 stood already complied with and to
\nthat extent our Decision was infructuous. However, in the present appeal,
\nbefore we can decide on the merits or demerits on disclosure of the enquiry
\nreport, we decided that it would be necessary for us to examine the report.
\nThe Enquiry Report was, therefore, directed to be presented to us on
\n20.7.2009 at 4.30 p.m. after examining which a final decision will be taken in
\nthe matter. Accordingly file No. F.24 (335)\/Vigilance\/06 was inspected by us
\non 20-7-2009 and the following are present: –\n<\/p>\n
       Respondents:<\/p>\n
       Shri Parvinder Singh, ACP (APIO)
\n       Shri Vineet Kumar, OSD (Home)<\/p>\n
                             DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       The enquiry report is included in pages 3 to 6 of the on file No. F.24
\n(335)\/Vigilance\/06 in the noting on file with the No. 347\/P.Sec. \/DCP
\nVigilance as reference. This is with reference to an enquiry on a complaint by
\nMs. Hema D’Souza wife of Shri M. D’Souza vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Varinder and
\nPolice Officers of PS Punjabi Bagh conducted by ACP (Vigilance) Shri Vijay
\nManchanda, Police Hqrs. Although, the report does mention the witnesses
\nexamined and their depositions, there is nothing in the report that could
\nremotely constitute a threat to the life of physical safety of any person that,
\nsince there is no incriminating evidence provided identifying the source of
\ninformation or assistance given for law enforcement, is unlikely to be
\ncompromised by disclosure.\n<\/p>\n
       We find, however, that apart from the enquiry report Ms. Hema
\nD’Souze has sought Copies of relevant documents from relevant\/ enquiry
\nfile(s) record of communications, in form of letters, facsimile, e-mail,
\ndocuments, reports, papers, material in electronic form or electronic records
\nor any other records, after inspection of aforementioned files\/ documents,<\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span>
\n pertaining to the complaint\/ statement\/ notations\/ enquiry with regards to
\ncaptioned complaint.\n<\/p>\n
         Having examined the records and heard the parties we come to the
\nfollowing conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
   i)       Enquiry report contained in pages 3 to 6 of File noting on file No.
\n            F.24 (335)\/Vigilance\/06 will be provided to Ms. Hema D’Souza
\n            within 10 days from the date of receipt of this decision notice;\n<\/p>\n
   ii)      Statement of witnesses which are stated tom have been given in
\n            confidence and which the witnesses may not wish to be disclosed,
\n            will be treated as exempt from disclosure u\/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI
\n            Act.\n<\/p>\n
         The appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no costs.\n<\/p>\n
         Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n20-7-2009<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n20-7-2009<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00181 dated 19-2-2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Ms. Hema D’Souza Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) Vigilance Date of Decision 20.7.’09 FACTS By an application of 27.9.2006 address to Addl. Secretary, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMs. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-04T13:08:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T13:08:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1552,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T13:08:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-04T13:08:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T13:08:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009"},"wordCount":1552,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009","name":"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 20 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T13:08:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hema-dsouza-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-20-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms. Hema D\u2019Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}