Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC

madras high court order directing court records under RTI 

with regards

rakesh gupta 

2008 INDLAW MAD 554

[MADRAS HIGH COURT]

J.M.Arumugham v (1) State, Represented By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Salem; (2) S.Arumugam; (3) A.Rajendran; (4) Santhi; (5) Brinda; (6) Nirmala; (7) Ramanayaki; (8) Leela

27 Feb 2008

BENCH M. JEYAPAUL THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOLLOWED IN 1 CASE(S) ACTS REFERRED Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[s. 13(2), s. 13(1)(c), s. 13(2)(e)] Indian Penal Code, 1860[s. 109] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[s. 161, s. 363(5), s. 363(6), s. 363] Right to Information Act, 2005 RULES REFERRED Criminal Rules [r. 339]

CASE NO Crl.O.P.No.18533 of 2007

KEYWORDS Criminal Case, Criminal Justice System, First Information Report, Petition allowed, Certified Copy, Public Document, Interest Of Justice, CRIMINAL, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Tamil Nadu, Charge Sheet, Criminal Court, Corruption, Criminal Justice, Copies, Public Prosecutor, Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988, Judicial Record, Government Advocate, Right To Information Act, 2005, Criminal Rules

LAWYERS S.Jayakumar, A.Saravanan, V.Gopinath, L.Mahendran

.JUDGMENT TEXT The Order of the Court was as follows : 1. The petition is filed seeking to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem declining to grant certified copies of the documents pertaining to the Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on his file. 2. A case in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 was filed against respondents 2 to 8 under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) of the and section 109 of the read with section 13(2) read with section 13(2)(e) of the for acquisition of properties disproportionate to the known source of their income. Later on, they were discharged from the proceedings in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 by the common order dated 6.11.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 3. The petitioner, who is the former Public Prosecutor for Salem District and a practising Advocate from the District and Sessions Court, Salem, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem seeking certified copy of the First Information Report, Charge Sheet, Docket Sheet endorsement, various petitions, counters and orders passed thereon and the statements recorded under section 161 of the for the purpose of preferring revision against the discharge of the accused from the aforesaid case before the High Court. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, having observed that no substantive reason was assigned for seeking certified copies of these documents, that the petitioner was not an affected person as contemplated under section 363(5) of the , that section 363(6) of the of can be invoked only before the High Court and that Rule 339 of the contemplates furnishing of the records of the Criminal Case only to the parties concerned and not to third parties, chose to dismiss the petition seeking copies of the aforesaid documents. 5. The petitioner assails the aforesaid order rejecting his plea seeking certified copy of those documents for the purpose of preferring revision before this court challenging the discharge of respondents 2 to 7 in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that section 363(6) of the contemplates supply of copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any person for that matter on payment of fees as per the rules framed by the High Court. Referring to Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965, he would further submit that on the request of any party certified copies of judicial records can be granted to persons who are not party to the proceedings. Referring to the judgment pronounced by the Bench of our High Court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in a similar case, our High Court has taken a view that even a third party is entitled to copies of the records in the Criminal Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that section 363(6) of the contemplates only issuance of grant of copies of the judgment or order of a Criminal Court to a third party in terms of the rules framed by the High Court. No rule invoking the aforesaid law was framed by our High Court. Therefore, the petitioner being a third party is not entitled to copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court. Even assuming for the sake of argument that de hors any rule framed by the High Court, the petitioner can invoke section 363(6) of the , he can obtain only a certified copy of judgment or order passed by the Criminal Court and not other records not contemplated therein. He would further contend that Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 does not apply to the records still lying with the Trial Court and not reached the portals of the High Court. Further, the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 was not enacted drawing powers under section 363(6) of the . Therefore, Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 does not apply to the fact situation. It is his vehement submission that if the copies of documents maintained by the Criminal Court is parted with to a third party, there is every chance for misuse of those documents which may land an innocent person into trouble at the hands of unscrupulous elements. There may also be miscarriage of justice if such documents are furnished to a third party who is not entitled to such documents and permit him to use it as a weapon to wreak vengeance against an innocent person. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner, who is a third party, is not entitled to any of the documents maintained by the Criminal Court. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem in the impugned order, section 363(5) will not apply to the facts of this case inasmuch as the petitioner who is neither a party to the proceedings nor a close relative to the parties to the proceedings, can be termed as persons "affected by the order". Likewise, Rule 339 of the contemplates issuance of copies of the records of the Criminal Court to the parties concerned on payment of proper stamp duty. The petitioner, who is a third party cannot be considered as a party concerned in the aforesaid proceedings in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. # 9. The question is whether the petitioner, being a third party aggrieved by the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a sensational case under the can seek for certified copies of the material records therein. Section 363(6) of the reads as follows:- "The High Court may, by rules, provide for the grant of copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any person who is not affected by a judgment or order, on payment, by such person, of such fees, and subject to such conditions, as the High Court may, by such rules, provide." * The Parliament, in its wisdom, has thought it fit to grant copies of any judgment or order of a Criminal Court even to a third party as per the terms and conditions of the rules framed by the respective High Court. Unfortunately, our High Court has not framed any rule right from the year 1973. The question that arises for consideration is whether the right of a third party conferred under section 363(6) of the to seek certified copies of any judgment or order of Criminal Court can be taken away just because the High Court has not framed necessary rule therein. 10. In the considered opinion of this court, the failure on the part of High Court in framing rules as indicated by the Parliament cannot take away the valuable right of a third party to obtain a copy of the judgment or order of a Criminal Court. Even when the Parliament has intended something and the High Court has not carried its intention to its logical end, the benevolent provision will have to be necessarily extended to the party entitled to enjoy the right recognised therein. This court has already held in D.JAYAKUMAR v. STATE rep by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Wing, Dindigul in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10290 of 2007 by order dated 4.10.2007 that a third party is entitled to certified copies of all the material documents in a criminal case. 11. There is no doubt that all the documents sought for by the petitioner/third party are only public documents. They do not fall under the classified information category. It is not the case of the first respondent State that supply of copies of the criminal records in C.C.No.14 of 2004 would jeopardise the interest of the State. After all the petitioner wants to challenge the order of discharge passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as a citizen concerned with the criminal administration in the country. Further, the prohibits divulging of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In other respects, furnishing of information from the court records are not prohibited under the . 12. It is true that section 363(6) of the contemplates only copies of judgment or order of a Criminal Court to any third party. When a party concerned can invoke rule 339 of the Criminal Rules of Practice to obtain any portion of the record of a Criminal Case on payment of stamp duty, the court finds that such a concession also will have to be extended notwithstanding the scope of section 363(6) of the to third parties also. # 13. Admittedly, the documents are still lying on the file of the Trial Court. It has not reached the portals of the High Court. Order XII Rule 3 of the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 will apply only in case where the documents have come to the file of the High Court. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the rules of the High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 have not been framed by the High Court empowered under section 363(6) of the . Therefore, I find without any hesitation that the Rules of High Court Madras Appellate Side, 1965 does not apply to a case where a third party seeks certified copies of the records of the Trial Court which have not come to the High Court in connection with any case pending before this court. 14. The created a dent in the so-called "privacy" being so far maintained by the authorities concerned. The courts also will have to be alive to the intendment of the to share vital information to the parties concerned. Any narrower interpretation of the law and imposition of any restriction on the right of the third party to know what is actually going on at the portals of the criminal justice system will not advance the interest of justice. For all these reasons, the court finds that the documents sought for by the petitioners in C.C.No.14 of 2004 will have to be granted to him. # 15. In view of the above, setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, he is directed to issue certified copies of all the documents the petitioner has sought for in Crl.M.P.No.1116 of 2007 in Special C.C.No.14 of 2004. The petition stands allowed. LIST OF CASE(S) REFERRING THIS JUDGMENT P. Ravindran vs. (1) State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing; (2) M. R. K. Paneerselvam; (3) P. Senthamizhselvi 2010 Indlaw MAD 1088

 

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:

please note Mr. A.N. Tiwari was Central information commissioner in Central information commission and as chief info commissioner he would have referred appeal to larger bench why he has not referred why i was given opportunity of hearing  in my complaint against bombay High court viadya --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote: From: Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 7:09 AM Dear Sarbajit In that case, I do stand corrected. Thank you. Regards Abhijit Mehta The Best Is Yet To Come  God Bless On 21-May-2011, at 6:28 AM, Sarbajit Roy wrote: Hi Abhijit This is just to clarify that the 2 points you made in your email are independent of each other, since Mr Tiwari was a Central Information Commissioner along with Mr Habibullah in the first CIC. Sarbajit. On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote: Mr Prasad Vaidya Mr Wajahat Habibullah could not have taken any action against A.N.Tiwari. The Central Information Commission and the state information commission are independent of each other. Only the Governor of Maharashtra Can take action against the State Information Commission. Regards Abhijit Mehta The Best Is Yet To Come  God Bless On 20-May-2011, at 10:47 AM, prasad vaidya wrote: Mr. Sarbajit roy , respected sir forward my grievances to Mr. Habibullah if you respct rights of common man like me. Mr. Wajahat Habibullah has adopted double when he was in office as a Chief Information Commission. I wrote to him regrding one judgment related to incometax appellate tribunal and requested him reconsider his decision but he never took cognizance of my letter which includes amany constitutional apsects. I wrote to him about behaviour of information Commssioner Shri. A.N. Tiwari who dispoed my appeal against Bombay High Court and during hearing he had passed order in which he has assured me to allow file inspection but in the printed order the sentences were ommitted and even he took decision without reading my written notes of arguments but Mr. Habibullah has not taken action on my complaint against Mr. A.N. Tiwari also my reqquest for hearing of Appeal against before Full Bench was acccepted and even Mr. Habibullah never informed whether my request is accpeted if not why the same is rejected.Remember as section 4(1)(d) CIC and c\hief information Commissioner was bound to inform me reasons even my complaint against bombay high court was decided without giving any opprtunity of hearing which in turn against the provisions of Article 14 includes principles of natural justice Mr. Habibullah was considering requests of those who were represented by big lawyers and and paries who were big industrials Mr. Habibullah has nothing to do with common man like he partial fellow and also the information commissioners and also Maharashtra infor Commssion and Bombay High Court also Prasad B Vaidya mo.08149558468 viadya --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 7:57 AM Sir Whereas I freely admit that there are some of your decisions in my cases which were not drafted by me at all, I stick to my stand that 2 of them (fairly lengthy ones) were substantially drafted by me, to the extent that in one of them I had even taken the trouble to provide it in electronic form (a Floppy disk since the CIC PCs didn't have a CD option in those days) so that it could reach your computer to polish up in your inimitable style. PS: My comments which you incorporated were already placed by me in the public domain using this group and other "blogs" Sarbajit On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote: Yes, Singhi was indeed brought in by me, but only as legal advisor, not as a drfatsman for decision writing! And because I might have incoprportaed your comments in my decisions, it hardly means that the draft decision was yours. And ofcourse all my decisions are still on my computer. Good old Er Srabajit-ever the endearing court jester! Wajahat ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > Sir, > > 1) It was a typo - it should be read as Mr L. C. Singhi who was also the Registrar of the CIC and is probably well known to you from LBSA days if not earlier. > > 2) The statement that all your decisions were drafted by yourself is not true, because at least 2 decisions issued under your signature in my RTI cases were actually substantially drafted by me. > > 3)  I have never shirked from admitting that you are / were a vastly superior Commissioner than the likes of Mr Shailesh Gandhi. > > With best wishes > > Sarbajit > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote: > Excuse me! All my decisions were drafted by myself, and there never was anybody by the name of Singhvi in the position of JS or anything else in the Commission. But thanks for the very rare compliment-which would never have come were I still CCIC! > Wajahat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 pm > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > > > Dear Mr Varma (and also Mr MK Gupta) > > > > It seems that you gentleman (like Mr Gandhi) are not aware of the facts concerning RTI process in the Supreme Court, and you would be well advised to read again Mr Habibullahs order in Adv Manish Khanna versus Supreme Court which is exceedingly well crafted considering the ground realities alluded to therein. It is another entirely that the decision in Adv Khanna's case was drafted by Mr LCSinghvi (the then JS-Law/CIC) and not by Mr Habibullah. The case number is CIC/WB/A/2006/00940 > > > > Sarbajit > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is no bunking. It is taking different view if one is convinced that view earlier taken by IC/CIC is incorrect. If One is to follow always what is decided  earlier, there will be no development of law or progress of law or understanding different view in any matter. I believe view now expressed by IC SG is the correct view, In fact sometime before on this sight strong objection was taken in context of registrar of companies matter and decision was debunked by many members. > > Narayan Varma > > > > > > On 16 May 2011 23:51, Shailesh Kumar Shukla <shailesh183@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > Thanks for the updates.. > > Please keep it up.. > > Regards.... > > > > From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com> > > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Mon, 16 May, 2011 4:55:19 PM > > Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC > > > > IF IC Gandhi debunks his old boss Wajahat this way, does it mean that > > the prior decisions of CIC/SIC has no precedential  value ? > > > > > > http://goo.gl/umpW6 > > > > > > > > -- > > Narayan Varma > > 56B Mittal Tower, > > 210 Nariman Point > > Mumbai 400 021 > > RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288            > >  my cell   09821096052 > > >