Jump to content
MANOJ B. PATEL

Director of Prosecution directed to give Police file

Recommended Posts

MANOJ B. PATEL

The appellant had sought copies of entire police file lying with the prosecution branch of the Patiyala House Court, New Delhi. PIO denied stating that information sought appears to be part and parcel of judicial file which applicant may obtain from concerned court, so far copies of police file is concerned same can not be parted with being prohibited/restricted under the provisions of CrPC.

 

The Commission directed the PIO of Directorate of Prosecution and PIO of concerned police department to apply doctrine of severability as provided in section 10 of the RTI Act and furnished certified copies of such information from police file.

 

"Our all members are requested to read this decision in which learned CIC has quoted judgments of hon'ble Supreme Court".

CIC_SA_A_2015_000136_M_156154.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Thanks for such decisions posted by you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.T.RATHAVA

It's called Strange Decisions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aturchatur

This is a best decision by CIC especially for those men victims whose wives have filed false cases on them & their families. Thanks Manoj brother for this useful information at the right time which will help many fighter victims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

What is this SIGPIC, dear aturchatur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

Prof Madbushi Sreedhar Acharylu is one CIC who gives such bold and speaking judgments and extensively lecturs on RTI whenever he visits HYDERABAD his place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

New Delhi, Jun 10 (PTI) The case diary maintained by police may not be disclosed even after closure of probe as larger public interests warrants against its disclosure, the Central Information Commission has held.

 

The Commission, however, directed the Delhi Police to disclose reasons for not prosecuting police officials along with advocates in the 2013 Kapashera clashes in which two each of police officials and advocates were injured.Read more at;

 

fullstory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

This decision is posted on 6.6.15.

 

"Director of Prosecution directed to give Police file'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Two threads merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Is there inconsistency in each decision given by same CIC. Can some one appraise the latest decision for further guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Is there inconsistency in each decision given by same CIC. Can some one appraise the latest decision for further guidance.

 

Depending on the case on hand, use the citation that best serves your purpose !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Case Diary protected from disclosure under RTI: CIC--Post No.8

Case Diary protected from disclosure under RTI: CIC--Post No.10

 

I only wanted as to whether both were decisions from same IC ?

In case of inconsistency, which decision has to be taken as precedent, as CPIO takes one and appellant takes other.

Just out of interest to know legal stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No. 294/IC(A)/2006
      F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00336
      Dated, the 21st Sep., 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, 25, Strand Road, 723, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001.
      Name of the Public Authority : The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI Bhavan, Indraprastha marg, P.B. No.7100, New Delhi-110002. DECISION
       
      Facts:
      The appellant had sought certain information which are furnished by the member companies and are available with the respondent in fiduciary capacity.
      The CPIO has denied the information on the ground that the information sought has no relation with public action or interest. The CPIO has also mentioned that the appellant has filed a complaint against the companies whose information are being sought. He has therefore contended that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. He has thus soughtexemption u/s 8(1) (h) of the Act. Commission’s Decision:
      Information sought relate to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which do not fall under public domain. As such, there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of information sought, which is exempt u/s 8(1) (j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download segment


       

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      RTI exposes 481 transfer requests by mumbai police officials written by MLAs and ministers in just 19 months.
       
      the Mumbai police commissioner and the Maharashtra director-general of police have received a record 481 written recommendations for transfers from MLAs and ministers in just 19 months.
       
      From March to September this year, the DGP got 99 recommendations for transfers, of which 30 have come from the chief minister himself. Some of the recommendations have also come from Deputy CM R R Patil.
       
      This was exposed following queries filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
       
      ecommendations for transfers had in fact come down in 2004, after the joint commissioner of police (administration) issued a strict warning to 71 police officers and 64 constables for trying to use political clout.
       
      Also, two departmental circulars were issued stating that any violation of the rule 413 rule of the Police Manual would be strictly dealt with.
       
      Rule 413 states that "government servants are forbidden to approach officials of other departments or non-official people for support and redress. They are liable for disciplinary action if MLAs or non-official persons approach the government on their behalf," the rule says.
       
       
       
      [sourse TOI]
       
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy