Copy of the inquiry carried by ROC and complaint filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - FAA: prosecution of offenders is on - CIC: how disclosure would impede the process of prosecution of offenders is not established
26 Dec, 2013Copy of the inquiry report carried out by the ROC and complaint filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court was denied u/s 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; 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; 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; - FAA: prosecution has been set in motion, prosecution of offenders is on - CIC: respondent have failed to establish how disclosure would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, directed to provide the information
ORDER
1. The appellant through his RTI application dated 29.10.2012 sought information on two queries – “(i) Copy of the inquiry report/ investigation carried out by the ROC before filing the complaint; and (ii) A copy of the complaint filed against the Company and Directors of M/s. Eternia Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. u/s 147(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 on 28.9.2012 in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mumbai”. The CPIO vide letter No. ROC/RTI/2012/NOV/3/4393 dated 3.12.2012 informed the appellant that (i) The ROC has not carried out any inquiry/investigation in respect of M/s. Eternia Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Hence, the same could not be provided and (ii) Copy of the complaint referred to in the application may be obtained from the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. The Office of ROC would not be in a position to provide the same, in the light of provisions of 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; 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; 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.
2. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 7.12.2012 before the FAA on the grounds of denial of information on Point No. (ii) of his RTI application 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; 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; 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. The FAA vide order No. ROC/RTI/2012/NOV/20/ 5049 dated 2.1.2013 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, informed the appellant that the ROC did not carry out any inquiry/ investigation into the existence or otherwise of the registered office of M/s. Eternia Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. The appellant’s complaint to the company for comments which was returned undelivered and therefore on the premise that the company was not having registered office, a Show Cause Notice was issued and thereafter eventually a complaint under the provisions of Section 147(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court. Thus, there is no such enquiry/ investigation report as requested by the appellant. The appellant had also asked for the copy of the complaint which was filed in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code for prosecuting the offenders i.e. the Company and its Directors. However, the said information would fall within the confines of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act i.e. since the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
3. In his second appeal filed before the Commission the appellant states that though the said Company is registered with the ROC, Mumbai, the whereabouts of the Company are not known even to the ROC as its communications sent to the company keep being returned undelivered forcing it to file a complaint u/s 147(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. The larger question is whether such a company should be allowed to continue to get the benefit of registration which gives it legal validity, and the gullible public can be cheated easily, particularly when it is in the business of lending and accepting monies at rates of interest in excess of that prescribed by the Government.
4. During the hearing the FAA submits that in the instant case, the prosecution has already been set in motion by filing a complaint before the Court of the concerned Magistrate and hence process of prosecution of offenders is on. Accordingly, the copy of the complaint relating to the said prosecution is exempted from disclosure.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the respondent have failed to establish how disclosure of the complaint filed by ROC before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The Commission therefore hereby directs the CPIO to provide the appellant with a copy of the complaint filed by them before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai within ten days of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil Agrawal v. Registrar of Companies in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000542