2011 (1) TMI 1552 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of disclosure of information sought under RTI application and the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the context of impeding the prosecution of offenders.

Information sought by the Appellant:
The Appellant sought information regarding the letters or documents on which the competent authority had issued sanction for investigation under Section 6A of the DSPE Act, 1946.

Decision Notice:
The Central Information Commission considered the submissions made by the Appellant and the Respondent. The interpretation of the phrase "prosecution of offenders" under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 was discussed, emphasizing that prosecution concludes with the final judgment. The judgment highlighted the importance of context in interpreting statutes, citing relevant case law. It was noted that seeking information through RTI could impede the trial court's discretion and interfere with the prosecution process.

The judgment referred to a previous case where it was established that seeking information related to an ongoing prosecution through RTI could prejudice the trial court's decision-making process. It was emphasized that the Trial Court has the authority to decide on the disclosure of such information, and any action under RTI could impede the prosecution proceedings.

The judgment also cited another case where it was clarified that information related to evidence in an ongoing prosecution is under the control of the Trial Court, and seeking such information through RTI could interfere with the court's discretion, impeding the prosecution process. The only appropriate channel for seeking such information was deemed to be the Competent Court.

The judgment further referenced a Bombay High Court case to explain the stages involved in supplying documents to the accused during the investigation process. It was concluded that the completion of investigation does not exempt information from Section 8(1)(h) if its disclosure could impede the prosecution of offenders.

In the present case, as the matter was sub-judice and the prosecution proceedings were ongoing, the requested information, other than the RC numbers, was considered confidential and essential for prosecution. The FAA's decision to refuse disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) was upheld, noting that providing such information could impede the prosecution process. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the FAA's order with modifications.