TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION No.2 Theagaraya Road, , 600 018. Tel: 24347590

Case No. 22702, 22703 & 36884 and 22952 /SCIC/2013

Date of Enquiry : 08/10/2013

Present : Thiru K.S.SRIPATHI, I.A.S.,(Retd.) State Chief Information Commissioner

Thiru S.F. AKBAR, B.Sc.,B.L., State Information Commissioner.

Petitioner: Thiru A. Sambandam Plot No.4, Kavignar Kannadasan 3 rd Street, Archana Nagar New Chennai – 600 063.

Public Authority: (1) The Public Information Officer O/o the Inspector of Police (Law & order) S-15 Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai – 600 073

(2) The Appellate Authority Deputy Commissioner of Police St. Thomas Mount District Chennai – 600 016.

*******

1. The petitioner Thiru A. Sambandam is present for today’s enquiry. The Public Authority is represented by Thiru P. Saravanan, Deputy Commissioner of Police, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, and Thiru A.S. Aslam Basha, Inspector of Police, S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai.

2. The petitioner/appellant herein has sought similar information in the above mentioned four petitions relating to the same issue and therefore these petitions are clubbed and heard together.

2

3. In these petitions, he has requested among other things, material relating to a case pending in Judicial Magistrate Court in CC No.403/2008. His argument in all these cases was that as an accused in this case, he has every right to get copies of the documents which the police has relied upon while filing the case before the concerned court. It is also his argument that nothing in this would attract the sub-sections under Section 8 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and he has therefore a right to get copies of all the documents which he is seeking. The Public Authority in its turn argued that the matter is pending in the appropriate court and that whatever material which has to be filed in the court while laying a charge sheet has been filed and that the copies of certain things like the case diary, confession statements are either not givable or not available with them and therefore they stuck to the stand that the information which is available with them have been furnished.

4. Going through the various statements that have been filed before this Commission and also the arguments of both the parties, it is found that the appellant herein has been in correspondence with the Public Authorities on many occasions seeking information and copies of documents relating to the above case. It is also found that in his first appeal and the second appeal he has raised queries on how such replies were incorrect and has narrated the sequence of events allegedly as believed by him. He has also stated that the Public Authority has not deliberately recorded several facts before submitting their report to the court. He has complained that they have not properly investigated and so on. It is also stated that in one of his petitions before this Commission “it is absolutely wrong to file such a false report before the court”, and ….. “He has not submitted to the court the information about the willingness of the accused to submit his confession statement to the Court.”

5. Admittedly, the appellant herein is an accused in a case pending before the appropriate court. It is also admitted that the charge sheet has been filed and is pending trial. In this case, the entire records and set of documents filed by the Police would be the property of the appropriate court till the case is disposed of and follow-up action taken. Even prima-facie it would look that the appellant should have approached the court rather than knocking at the doors of the investigating authority regarding the case diary. It was argued by the Public Authority as per Section 172 (3) Cr.P.C. case diary cannot be furnished. They also added that the case diary does contain information relating to the details of informers and revealing the details of which would come under Section 8 (1) (g). However, the Public Authority has taken recourse to decline to give a copy of the case diary quoting Section 8 (h) which is a clause to exempt furnishing of information if such a fact would impede the 3

process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It is presumed that the Public Authority has relied upon the third aspect in this Section 8 (1) (h) namely impeding the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

6. Be that as it may. Furnishing of case diary which contains the details of informers would definitely attract Section 8 (1) (g) and therefore the decision of the Public Authority in having declined to furnish a copy of that is upheld. The appellant, however, argued that part of the case diary had been furnished to him and therefore there could be nothing wrong in giving the rest of the case diary. The Commission observes that the Public Authority most likely in its enthusiasm to furnish information has committed something wrong which does not mean that the Commission should allow such a wrong to be perpetuated.

7. Section 172 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is extracted below :-

“172 Diary of proceedings in investigation - (1) …. (2) …. (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. The above section quoted by the Public Authority is mandatory and is found that this exemption is quite categorical. The Commission observes that what is exempt in view of Section 172 (3) Cr.PC shall be exempt as regards an information seeker also.

9. Regarding a copy of the alleged confessional statement, it is found in his own statement mentioned supra that he was willing to give but the police were not willing to take it. The Public Authority during the enquiry stoutly denied having taken any such 4

confession statement which goes to prove that the copy of which he is seeking just does not exist and the appellant himself has indirectly admitted to this effect.

10. The Commission finds that whatever information which could be furnished by the Public Authority have been furnished to him and therefore nothing more remains to be considered in these appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed as warranting no further action or enquiry.

TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION Orders approved on this the 21 st day of November 2013

Under the orders of the Commission

Assistant Registrar

Case No. 22702, 22703 & 36884 and 22952 /SCIC/2013 To Thiru A. Sambandam Plot No.4, Kavignar Kannadasan 3 rd Street, Archana Nagar, New Perungalathur Chennai – 600 063.

(1) The Public Information Officer O/o the Inspector of Police (Law & order) S-15 Selaiyur Police Station, Chennai – 600 073

(2) The Appellate Authority Deputy Commissioner of Police St. Thomas Mount District Chennai – 600 016.

rs