Copies of statement given by four accused in a case was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - PIO: it is an old case, statement may not have been recorded, some of the records had been destroyed; if the records were available they would provide - CIC: provide information
1. The appellant filed an application dated 11.05.2013 under the RTI Act seeking copies of statement given by four accused in a case. CPIO denied the information vide letter dated 28.05.2013. Appellant filed appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 05.06.2013. FAA vide order dated 02.07.2013 directed the CPIO to obtain fresh report from the SHO. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 22.08.2013.
3. Appellant stated that he filed a complaint with the police pertaining to fabrication of documents of a property. Appellant stated that FIR had been lodged based on his complaint. Appellant stated that police had done the investigation and charge sheet had been filed, and the case was pending trial before the competent court.
4. Appellant stated that based on his complaint some persons were arrested. Appellant stated that the statement sought by him was made by four accused persons before the investigating officer.
5. Appellant stated that since the investigation had already been over and charge sheet had already been filed, there was no reason to deny the information to the appellant.
6. Appellant stated that the information sought by the appellant was denied by the respondent under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act which was not applicable in the appellant’s case.
7. Appellant stated that he did not seek copy of the police diary and that he was simply seeking copy of statement given by some persons in a case where he was the complainant.
8. Respondent stated that copy of the statement sought by the appellant could not be given in view of section 172 of the Cr.P.C, because the statement was part of the police diary.
9. Respondent stated that in CIC/SS/A/2013/00386 the Commission had held that section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act would apply in relation to the case diary.
10. Appellant stated that section 172 Cr.PC was regarding the accused person and in the present case he was the complainant. Appellant stated that based on the statements, police had arrested more person who were involved in the crime.
11. Respondent stated that complaint was filed in 2006 by the appellant and FIR was lodged in 2009 and the statement sought by the appellant may not have been recorded during those periods. Respondent stated that some of the records had also been destroyed. Respondent stated that if the records were available they would provide copy of the statement sought in the RTI application.
12. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the RTI application as available with the respondent. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri S C Sharma v. Delhi Police in Decision No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002002/VS/06463