CIC/SA/A/2015/000136. Case: Arun Sharma Vs Tis Hazari Court. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | CIC/SA/A/2015/000136 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in Person and Devender Bhardwaj and For Respondents: Balbir Singh, PIO |
| Judges | M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Advocate Act, 1961 - Section 49(1)(c); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 172, 172(3); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 126, 145, 161; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 323, 34, 341; Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 10, 2(f), 22, 8, 8 (c), 8(1), 8(1)(a), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), 8(2) |
| Judgement Date | June 05, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), Information Commissioner 1. The appellant is present along with Devender Bhardwaj. The Public Authority was represented by Balbir Singh, PIO. FACTS: 2. Appellant through his RTI application had sought copies of the entire Police File in FIR No. 194/2013 under section 323/341/34. PS Kapashera, police file that is lying with prosecution branch of New Delhi District at Patiala House Courts. Appellant himself was the author of FIR and complainant in this criminal case. The PIO replied on 09.07.2014 stating that the information sought by the appellant appears to be part and parcel of judicial file which he may obtain from the concerned court. So far as the copy of police file is concerned the same cannot be parted with being prohibited/restricted under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. 3. The First Appellant Authority by his order dated 01.10.2014 dismissed the appeal stating that the FIR was pending in the court of Shri Sanjay Aggarwal, CMM and the court has to decide the fate of cancellation report as well as of protest petition and further the case diary has been provided to the prosecution by the investigating agency to conduct the trial of the aforesaid case. Hence in the light of the aforesaid judgment and in view of the fact that the document i.e. police file/case diary is prohibited/restricted under provisions of 172 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be parted/supplied to the petitioner. However, the investigating agency being the main custodian of the case diary and he may obtain the same from them. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached the Commission in second appeal. Decision: 4. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant sought the entire record of the police file including case dairy regarding FIR No. 194/2013 of the Police Station: Kapashera under sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC from the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution, Tis Hazari Court. The appellant says that they were the victims of Kapashera clash between the Police and Advocates in which two police officers and two advocates were injured. Cross cases were filed. 5. The appellant contended that the case against the police-accused was closed by the Police Investigation agency and the cases against the advocate-accused were being pursued. The appellant is the injured person and complainant, not an accused. He claimed that he was in need of the entire record of police file for a public cause. The appellant suspected collusion/connivance between the accused-police officers and the Department of police, belonging to same profession, and also suspected that the police was not interested in prosecuting the police-accused, but at the same time, with vengeance, they are perusing the case against the advocate-accused. 6. The representative of respondent authority stated that the Hon'ble CMM Court has rejected the closure report and summoned the police accused. The appellant sought prosecution of the concerned investigating officer for framing an incorrect document with an intent to cause injury to the appellant. The appellant has already filed complaints against several police officers, but no reasons for closure of case was disclosed. Therefore, the appellant wanted to have the copy of the case diary of the police file claiming that it is necessary in the interests of justice. He wanted to unearth the suspected fake story of police Inquiry Officer regarding closure of case against the police- accused/police colleagues and hence attributed malice to the PIO. 7. It is not the case of respondent authority that information sought could not be provided. The PIO Mr. Balbir Singh responded on 9-7-2014 stating that information sought by the appellant is part and parcel of judicial file and hence he can obtain the same from the concerned court. Then he comes up with plea that the disclosure of it is prohibited under section 172 Cr.P.C., 1973 says: "s. 172. Diary of proceedings in investigation. (1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. (2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. (3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply." 8. Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. deals with maintenance of diary of proceedings in investigation, such as time at which information reached him, time of beginning and closure of investigation, places visited by him, and statement of circumstances ascertained through investigation. Section 172(3) specifically says that the accused or his agents shall not be entitled to see the case diary unless the police officer uses them to refresh his memory or Court uses to contact the police officer. In this case the whole investigation is closed by the police against their own colleague-police personnel, but opened up by the court. There is a huge public interest in the disclosure as the investigation against lawyer-accused is continuing. Though accused is not asking for the information, there is every possibility that it could be used for the 'lawyer-accused' in this incident. 9. This section does not have any prohibition against disclosure to persons other than... |
To continue reading
Request your trial