Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    



Please Wait ..


Discussion > Criminal Law > IPC > RTI Act invkoke in Criminal Case   Unanswered Threads Post New Topic

Pages : 1


There are 2 Replies to this message


Siv


engineer
[ Scorecard : 1019]
Posted On 30 June 2011 at 13:16 Report Abuse

Hi All,

 

Make judiciary to work and make them sleep less on thier mistakes.... read below:

Hon’ble Sir,  

 

Humbly submit that the applicant is compelled to make the above referred appeals as the Public Information Officer (PIO) and/or Public Authority (PA) has denied information under Right To Information Act-2005, in short RTI Act, and denial of information supply is not maintainable and the supporting arguments are herewith submitting below:  

 

1.      Humbly submit that the PIO/PA reply is not maintainable on the below grounds:

 

a.       The requested information does not impede the process of prosecution and the requested information is mandatory to disclose as per various sections of Criminal Procedure Code, in short CrPC and the requested information do not attract section 8 of RTI Act.

 

b.      The PIO/PA reply saying that “stay is present on the case proceedings hence the information can not be given” is not maintainable on the ground that application is not requesting to proceedings of the criminal case and even considering that the PIO/PA version is valid the proceedings against the applicant/accused-A1 is not stayed by the Hon’ble Court hence applicant shall get the requested information.

 

c.       The PIO/PA reply saying that “case is pending before the Hon’ble Court of the PIO and before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P” is not maintainable on the ground that application is seeking information available with the PIO/PA only and supply of the information is no way affect/impede the proceeding in Hon’ble High Court of A.P or other.

 

d.      The PIO/PA reply saying that “Applicant has no right to ask for information” is not maintainable on the ground that every citizen of India has the right to know the information under RTI Act unless otherwise the requested information is not under purview of the RTI Act and while denying the information the PIO/PA has to supply the reasons with the supporting references and the PIO/PA failed to supply any of the references while denying the supply of information.

 

e.       The PIO/PA reply saying that “Court is not inclined to give information and/or clarification under RTI Act” is not maintainable on the ground that the reply from PIO/PA is questioning the RTI Act provisions and no supporting references are made in support of the PIO/PA reply.

 

2.      Humbly submit that the requested information is well under the purview of the RTI Act and the requested information do not attract section 8 of RTI Act being the requested information is allowed to know by the accused/applicant even without request as per the procedures that the PIO/PA shall follow as per the law.

 

3.      Humbly submit that the requested information is well within the definition of sections 2(f) and 4 of the RTI Act RT and is well within the purview of the RTI Act as described below. 

 

4.      Humbly submit that PIO/PA failed to give the supporting material and/or grounds in support of invoking the section 8 of RTI Act that support supply of information would impede the process of prosecution of offenders and there is no order from any Hon’ble Court in support of PIO/PA reply grounds.   

 

5.      Humbly submit that invoking the section 8 of RTI Act is not maintainable and also denial of information to the accused/applicant is against the well settled laws and is questioning validity and the scope of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and also the provision of the RTI Act. 

 

6.      Humbly submit that in the circumstances of the denial of information there should be sufficient reasons that are applicable as per section 8 of RTI Act and those may be part of the Order/Judgement passed by any Hon’ble Court under applicable section of CrPC (may refer section 173 and 207 of CrPC) which is not existed in the case in hand.

 

7.      Humbly submit that various sections of the CrPC clearly show that the Hon’ble Magistrate has the opinion with the Magistrate and this opinion is well within the purview of the RTI Act and is mandatory to supply this opinion to the accused/applicant on request as per RTI Act and in the interest of justice and to enable the accused to defend the case instituted against him.

 

8.      Humbly submit that as per the sections 204, 239 of CrPC Magistrate has reasons and opinion and the reasons and opinions are under the purview of the section 2(f) of RTI Act and the section 4 of RTI Act and the accused/applicant can invoke any provision of law to get information.

 

9.      Humbly submit that as per the sections 211, 212, 213, 207 and 238 of CrPC even without request the requested information shall be disclosed upon request to the applicant/accused in the interest of justice.

 

10.  Humbly submit that while the PIO and/PA denying supply of information under RTI Act should only refer section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act being the RTI Act has been the latest law/Act implemented and section 22 of the RTI Act is invoked in support of this argument.

 

11.  Humbly submit that failure to give reasons invoking the section 8(1)(h) reveals that no supporting ground to deny supply of information and the applicant put reliance on the below decisions and seeking information:

 

i)        Appeal No. CIC/PA/A/2009/0005, 06 & 07 dated 30-12-2009, in which the Appellant: Shri Sundeep Goyal; Respondent: Calcutta High Court, Appeals Side Appeal Heard: 17.9.2010 Decision announced: 29.9.2010.

ii)      Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00408 dated 23.3.2007, Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Ranjit Singh, Respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

iii)     Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351. Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/ 000237/SG.

iv)     Cops can’t deny info that don’t hamper probe: CIC: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cops-cant-deny-info-that-dont-hamper- probe -cic/790738/

v)      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, WP(C) No. 3114/2007, Decided On: 03.12.2007, Appellants: Bhagat Singh Vs. Respondent: Chief Information Commissioner and Ors.  Hon'ble Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

vi)     Barse V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378.

vii)   Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001191.

viii)  Appeal No.522/ ICPB/2007 F.No.PBA/07/53 dt: May 28, 2007

 

12.  Humbly submit that as per sections of 173, 204, 207, 211, 212, 213, 238, 239 and 240 of CrPC the PIO/PA has the information that should be supplied to the applicant/accused in details on request.

 

13. Humbly submit that as per sections of 173, 204, 207, 211, 212, 213, 238, 239 and 240 of CrPC even if the opinion or reasons are not mandatory to disclose the applicant/accused has the right to get the opinion and/or reasons from the PIO/PA under RTI Act being the section 22 of RTI Act has overriding effect on the existing laws/Act and the RTI Act is the latest law approved by constitution of India.

 

14.  Humbly submit that the opinion and the reasons that under the purview of the sections of 173, 204, 207, 211, 212, 213, 238, 239 and 240 of CrPC shall be supplied to the Applicant/Accused as per RTI Act being the RTI Act is the later law and overrides the earlier law if any exists and contradicts with the RTI Act provisions and the applicant relies on

 

a.       Observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.S. Raghunath vs. State of Karnataka-AIR 1992 SC 81 and

b.      Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla — A1R2002 SC 2322.

c.       R. K. Pandey v. Supreme Court of India CIC/WB/A/2008/00777 dated 24/04/2008 and CIC/WB/A/2009/00150 dated 20/02/2009.

 

15.  Humbly submit that two scenarios may be envisaged from the above citations (Refer: Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG/12351 Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000237/SG) are:

 

a.       An earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information and is consistent with the RTI Act: Since there is no inconsistency between the law/ rule and the provisions of the RTI Act, the citizen is at liberty to choose whether she will seek information in accordance with the said law/ rule or under the RTI Act. If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the citizen as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only; and

 

b.      An earlier law/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information but is inconsistent with the RTI Act: Where there is inconsistency between the law/ rule and the RTI Act in terms of access to information, then Section 22 of the RTI Act shall override the said law/ rule and the PIO would be required to furnish the information as per the RTI Act only.

 

16.  Humbly submit that the opinion and the reasons that under the purview of the sections of 173, 204, 207, 211, 212, 213, 238, 239 and 240 of CrPC shall be supplied to the Applicant/Accused as per RTI Act as long as the opinion and the reason do not impede the process of prosecution and/or investigation of the case as per section 8 of RTI Act. 

 

17.  Humbly submit that various articles (section 226 and 21) of the Indian Constitution support the supply of information to the public in the interest of justice.

 

18.  Further submit that denial of requested information during the investigation reveals that the accused of the case do not know alleged allegations details viz. occurrence time, place, date and the manner the alleged offence done and three years is passed by now and also the accused is not allowed to collect the evidence by suppressing the alleged allegations details and present circumstances are letting the evidence destroy and there is no reason/ground mentioned to deny and hide the requested information.

 

19.  Humbly submit in various occasions the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has made decision saying that the accused shall be given information within 48 hours and with out any delay.

 

20.  Humbly submit that if any law or provision of constitution prohibits the supply of information to the applicant section 22 of RTI Act is invoked and the applicant shall get the information other than the information that attract section 8 and 9 of RTI Act and also applicant shall be supplied the sufficient reasons in invoking the section 8 and 9 if invoked by the PIO/PA.

 

21.  Humbly submit that while denying the requested information under RTI Act the PIO /PA has to invoke only sections 8 and 9 of RTI Act for denial with speaking order and no internal orders and/or rules are applicable to deny the information as per section 22 of RTI Act.

 

22.  Humbly submit that the applicant requested information and the requests are supported by the section of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as well as the requested information does not attract sections 8 and 9 of RTI Act.

 

23.  Further submit that failure to disclose the requested information reveals that the applicant, Accused-A1 in the FIR.NO: 616/2008 is not aware of the crime done and the proceedings are violating the applicable sections of CrPC and the process adopted by the PIO/PA is abusing the process of law.

 

24.  Humbly submit that the applicant is resident of Bangalore and is working in a company at Bangalore and due to false cases the attendance of the applicant in the office is affected that put the applicant very difficult position in securing the job and the only source of income for the applicant is the job and the applicant has dependents and the entire applicant family is affected by the false criminal case instituted.

 

 

P R A Y E R

1.      Pray to pass appropriate speaking order addressing the all the points made in this written arguments submission.

2.      Pry to fix time limit to supply full information to the accused/applicant by the PIO/PA.

3.      Pray to exempt personal appearance before the Hon’ble Registrar of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the circumstances listed above.

4.      Pray to send the certified copies of the arguments submitted by the PIO and/or PA and the applicant.

5.      Pray to pass a common order for the appeals made by the applicant being the requested information is regarding the same matter and the applicant is same for all the appeals.

6.      Pray to furnish information part of the order about the second appellate authority details in the Justice Department (The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court or Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).



pratik


self working
[ Scorecard : 5245]
Posted On 30 June 2011 at 22:03 Report Abuse

also like to know.


Manoj Deka


proprietor
[ Scorecard : 245]
Posted On 04 February 2013 at 14:16 Report Abuse

Dear Siv Ji,

WOULD YOU PLEASE SEND THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENT TO manojdeka1972@gmail.com or upload hear I googled but could not find

 

a.       Observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.S. Raghunath vs. State of Karnataka-AIR 1992 SC 81 and

b.      Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla — A1R2002 SC 2322.

c.       R. K. Pandey v. Supreme Court of India CIC/WB/A/2008/00777 dated 24/04/2008 and CIC/WB/A/2009/00150 dated 20/02/2009.




Related Files



Previous Thread
Previous
Next Thread
Next

Related Threads


Post your reply for RTI Act invkoke in Criminal Case



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to login


Not a member yet ?? Click here to signup

Message







    

  • This is a public forum. Avoid posting content which you do not wish to disclose in public.
  • Use thank button to convey your appreciation.
  • Maintain professionalism while posting and replying to topics.
  • Try to add value with your each post.





Subscribe to the latest topics :


Forum Home | Forum Portal | Control Center | Who is Where | Popular Threads | Today's Topic | Recent Posts | Today's Posts | Post New Topic | Thread With Files | Top Threads - Month | Unreplied Topics | Forum Stats


web analytics