CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu(MadabhushiSridhar)
InformationCommissioner

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

ArunSharmavs.TisHazariCourt
ImportantDatesandtimetaken:

RTI:7714/9714(2)

FA:24714/81014(76)

Hearing:26.5.2015

SA:1512015

Disposedofwithdirections

Decision:562015

PartiesPresent:
TheappellantispresentalongwithDevenderBhardwaj.ThePublicAuthoritywas
representedbyBalbirSingh,PIO.

FACTS:
2.AppellantthroughhisRTIapplicationhadsoughtcopiesoftheentireCaseDiaryCDin
FIR No. 194/2013 under section 323/341/34. PS Kapashera, police file that is lying with
prosecutionbranchofNewDelhiDistrictatPatialaHouseCourts.Appellanthimselfwasthe
authorofFIRandcomplainantinthiscriminalcase.ThePIOrepliedon09.07.2014stating
thattheinformationsoughtbytheappellantappearstobepartandparcelofjudicialfile
whichhemayobtainfromtheconcernedcourt.Sofarasthecopyofpolicefileisconcerned
CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page1

thesamecannotbepartedwithbeingprohibited/restrictedundertheprovisionsofCr.P.C.
Beingunsatisfied,appellantfiledfirstappeal.
3.TheFirstAppellantAuthoritybyhisorderdated01.10.2014dismissedtheappealstating
thattheFIRwaspendinginthecourtofShriSanjayAggarwal,CMMandthecourthasto
decidethefateofcancellationreportaswellasofprotestpetitionandfurthertheCDhas
been provided to the prosecution by the investigating agency to conduct the trial of the
aforesaidcase.Henceinthelightoftheaforesaidjudgementandinviewofthefactthatthe
documenti.epolicefile/casediaryCDisprohibited/restrictedunderprovisionsof172Cr.P.C,
thesamecannotbeparted/suppliedtothepetitioner.However,theinvestigatingagencybeing
the main custodian of the case diary and he may obtain the same from them. Being
unsatisfied,appellantapproachedtheCommissioninsecondappeal.
DECISION:
4.Boththepartiesmadetheirsubmissions.Theappellantsoughttheentirerecordofthe
policefile/casedairyCDregardingFIRNo.194/2013ofthePoliceStation:Kapasheraunder
sections323,341and34IPCfromthePIO,DirectorateofProsecution,TisHazariCourt.
TheappellantsaysthattheywerethevictimsofKapasheraclashbetweenthePoliceand
Advocatesinwhichtwopoliceofficersandtwoadvocateswereinjured.Crosscaseswere
filed.
5. Theappellantcontendedthatthecaseagainstthepoliceaccusedwasclosedbythe
Police Investigation agency and the cases against the advocateaccused were being
pursued.Theappellantistheinjuredperson/complainant,andnotaccused.Heclaimedthat
he was in need of the entire record of CD/police file for a public cause. The appellant
suspectedcollusion/connivancebetweentheaccusedpoliceofficersandtheDepartmentof
police,belongingtosameprofession,andalsosuspectedthatthepolicewasnotinterestedin
prosecutingthepoliceaccused,butatthesametime,withvengeance,theyareperusingthe
caseagainsttheadvocateaccused.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page2

6. The representative of respondent authority stated that the Honble CMM Court has
rejectedtheclosurereportandsummonedthepoliceaccusedalso. Theappellantsought
prosecutionoftheconcernedinvestigatingofficerforframinganincorrectdocumentwithan
intenttocauseinjurytotheappellant. Theappellanthasalreadyfiledcomplaintsagainst
several police officers, but no reasons for closure of case was disclosed. Therefore, the
appellantwantedtohavethecopyofthecasediaryorthepolicefile claimingthatitis
necessaryintheinterestsofjustice.Hewantedtounearththesuspectedfakestoryofpolice
InquiryOfficerregardingclosureofcaseagainstthepoliceaccused/policecolleaguesand
henceattributedmalicetothePIO.
7.ThePIOMr.BalbirSinghrespondedon972014statingthatinformationsoughtbythe
appellant is part and parcel of judicial file and hence he can obtain the same from the
concernedcourt.Itwasalsopleadedthatthedisclosureofitisprohibitedundersection172
CrPC,1973says:
s.172.Diaryofproceedingsininvestigation.(1)Everypoliceofficermakingan
investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the
investigationinadiary,settingforththetimeatwhichtheinformationreachedhim,
thetimeatwhichhebeganandclosedhisinvestigation,theplaceorplacesvisited
byhim,andastatementofthecircumstancesascertainedthroughhisinvestigation.
(2)AnyCriminalCourtmaysendforthepolicediariesofacaseunderinquiryortrial
insuchCourt,andmayusesuchdiaries,notasevidenceinthecase,buttoaiditin
suchinquiryortrial.
(3)Neithertheaccusednorhisagentsshallbeentitledtocallforsuchdiaries,nor
shallheortheybeentitledtoseethemmerelybecausetheyarereferredtobythe
Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his
memory,oriftheCourtusesthemforthepurposeofcontradictingsuchpoliceofficer,
the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian
EvidenceAct,1872(1of1872),shallapply.

8.Section172oftheCrPCdealswithmaintenanceofdiaryofproceedingsininvestigation,
such as time at which information reached him, time of beginning and closure of
investigation, places visited by him, and statement of circumstances ascertained through

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page3

investigation. Section172(3)specificallysaysthattheaccusedorhisagentsshallnotbe
entitledtoseethecasediaryunlessthepoliceofficerusesthemtorefreshhismemoryor
Courtusestocontactthepoliceofficer.Inthiscasethewholeinvestigationisclosedbythe
policeagainsttheirowncolleaguepolicepersonnel,butopenedupbythecourt.Thereisa
huge public interest in the disclosure, as the investigation against lawyeraccused is
continuing.Thoughaccusedisnotaskingfortheinformation,thereiseverypossibilitythatit
couldbeusedforthelawyeraccusedinthisincident.
9. Thissectiondoesnothaveanyprohibitionagainstdisclosuretopersonsotherthanthe
accused or his agents. Even the accused has a right to such information under two
circumstancesexplainedinthesaidsection.Policehavealreadyusedthediarytoframethe
lawyeraccused and relieve the policeaccused, and thus such use necessitates the
disclosure,asperSection172(3).
10.TheobjectofrecordingcasediariesunderthissectionistoenableCourtstocheckthe
method of investigation by the police. The Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v
CommissionerofPoliceAIR1983SC826said:Theentriesinthediarymustbemade
promptlyinsufficientdetailsmentioningallsignificantfactsoncarefulchronologicalorderand
withcompleteobjectivity.Thehaphazardmaintenanceofapolicecasediarynotonlydoesno
credittothoseresponsibleformaintainingitbutdefeatstheverypurposeforwhichitis
requiredtobemaintained.
11.Thepurposeofmaintenanceofrecordintheformofcasediaryistoensureobjectivity
andthepurposeforwhichdisclosureissoughtalsoistoexaminetheobjectivityofrecordand
inthiscase,objectivityofclosureorcontinuanceofprosecution.
12.Thepurposeofmaintenanceofcasediaryisexplainedintwocases:InAhmedMiya
(1944)1Cal133,...butitcanbeusedforthepurposeofassistingtheCourtintheenquiry
ortrialbyenablingittodiscovermeansforfurtherelucidationofpointswhichneedclearing
upbeforejusticecanbedone.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page4

13.InJotiJibanGhosh,AIR1964Cal59,thecourtsaidItcanbeusedasaidinframing
achargethoughnotforfoundingthecharge.Ifcourtneedsit,itcansecurethecasediary.
Theadvocates,injuredappellantsinthiscase,pleadedthattheyneedcopiesofcasediaryto
examinereasonabilityindroppingchargesagainstpolicepersonnelandmaintainingthem
againstadvocatesinthesameincident.
14.InSidharthvStateofBihar,CriminalAppealnumber689of2003and736of2003
decided by K G Balakrishnan, J decided on 30.9.2005 (before the RTI Act came into
existence)(indiankanoon.org/doc/180067/)theSupremeCourtheld:
....we maypoint out that in the present case, we have noticed that the entire case diary
maintained by the police was made available to the accused. Under Section 172 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, every police officer making an investigation has to record his
proceedingsinadiarysettingforththetimeatwhichtheinformationreachedhim,thetimeat
which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a
statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. It is specifically
providedinSubclause(3)ofSection172thatneithertheaccusednorhisagentsshallbe
entitledtocallforsuchdiariesnorshallheortheybeentitledtoseethemmerelybecause
theyarereferredtobytheCourt,butiftheyareusedbythepoliceofficerwhomadethemto
refreshhismemory,oriftheCourtusesthemforthepurposeofcontradictingsuchpolice
officer,theprovisionsofsection161oftheCr.P.C.ortheprovisionsofsection145ofthe
EvidenceActshallbecompliedwith.TheCourtisempoweredtocallforsuchdiariesnotto
use it as evidence but to use it as aid to find out anything that happened during the
investigationofthecrime.TheseprovisionshavebeenincorporatedintheCodeofCriminal
Procedure to achieve certain specific objectives. The police officer who is conducting the
investigationmaycomeacrossseriesofinformationwhichcannotbedivulgedtotheaccused.
He is bound to record such facts in the case diary. But if the entire case diary is made
availabletotheaccused,itmaycauseseriousprejudicetoothersandevenaffectthesafety
andsecurityofthosewhomayhavegivenstatementstothepolice.Theconfidentialityis
alwayskeptinthematterofcriminalinvestigationanditisnotdesirabletomakeavailablethe
entirecasediarytotheaccused.Intheinstantcase,wehavenoticedthattheentirecase
diarywasgiventotheaccusedandtheinvestigatingofficerwasextensivelycrossexamined
onmanyfactswhichwerenotverymuchrelevantforthepurposeofthecase.Thelearned
SessionsJudgeshouldhavebeencarefulinseeingthatthetrialofthecasewasconductedin
accordancewiththeprovisionsoftheCr.P.C.

15.IntheabovecasetheSupremeCourtexplainedhowaccusedcannothaveaccessto
entirecasediary.TheapplicationbeforethisCommissionisnotbyaccusedandtheabove
judgmentwasdeliveredbeforethecommencementofRTIAct,2005.

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page5

16. In MukundLalv.UnionofIndiaandAnr.(AIR1989SC144)theHonbleSupreme
Courtheldthataccusedcanperusethatparticularpartofthecasediaryinthecontextof
Sections145or161oftheEvidenceAct(a)ifitisusedbythepoliceofficerconcernedto
refreshhismemoryor(b)iftheCourtuses,itforcontradictingtheofficialconcerned.
17.Thus,eventheaccusedisnottotallyprohibitedfromusingthecasediary.
18. Shri A.N Tiwari , & Shri M.M Ansari F. No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00071 (decided On:
11.05.2006)inthematterofShriKuldeepKumarVShriB.SBrarwhileallowingdisclosureof
agistofthedepositionsofthoseexaminedbythepolicewithoutdisclosingnamesordetails
whichcouldcompromisewitness/sourceconfidentialityandsafetyobservedthat:
Weareinagreementwiththeappellateauthority'savermentthatdisclosingthedetailsofthe
case diary will have far reaching consequences in terms of the confidentiality of the
information received by the police and may even endanger the physical safety of those
examinedbythepoliceauthorities.However,wealsonoticethatinspiteofclaimingabsolute
exemption under Section 8(1)(g), the PIO had voluntarily given some information to the
appellant about thestatus of his case along with the reasonas towhy it was treated as
untraced.Inourview,somemoreinformationthanwhathasbeengiventotheappellantcan
alsobegiventohimwithoutundulycompromisingtheinvestigationorthewitnessesetc.We
saythiswhilestillrecognizingthatinallrequestsforinformationunderRTIAct,especially
whentheypertaintothelawenforcementauthorities,itbecomesnecessarytostrikeafine
balancebetweentheimperativesoftheconfidentialityofthesourcesofinformation,witness
protection and so on, with the right of the citizen to get information. In our view, in this
particularcase,thatbalancewillnotbeundulyaffectedifthefollowingfurtherinformationis
furnishedbythePIOtotheappellant.Wewishtoaddherethatweacceptthemeritofthe
policeauthority'scontentionthatanopenendedorderbythisCommissiontomakeavailable
to any information seeker, all the details of investigation into a crime, will have serious
implicationsforlawenforcementandwillhavepotentialityformisusebycriminalelements.
Eachcasewill,therefore,havetobeexaminedindependently,onthebasisoffactsspecificto
thatcase.Inthisparticularcase,wedon'tfindthattheapprehensionsofthepoliceabout
disclosureofinformationarejustified."

19.Fromtheaboveorderitisclearthateachrequestforinformationhastobeexamined
separatelyanddisclosurehastobejustified.
20.InthematterofShriHKBansalKantaVs.CPIO,CentralBureauofInvestigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, and CPIO, Department of Post, Rohtak Division
(CIC/SM/A/2011/000416, 23.03.2012 ) the Ld. Chief Information Commissioner has held:
CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page6

Duringthehearing,theRespondentsreportedthatthetrialofthiscasewasstillgoingon
and,therefore,thedesireddocumentfromwhichcertainconclusionshadbeenquotedbythe
Appellantcouldnotbedisclosedwithoutaffectingadverselytheprosecutionoftheoffender.
Inseveralsimilarcasesinthepast,wehadalsoheldthatdocumentssuchasthereportof
theinvestigatingofficerwhichmightcontaincopiesofthecasediaryandothersuchrecords
shouldnotnormallybedisclosedasitmightimpedetheinvestigation/prosecution.Therefore,
wetendtoagreewiththedecisionoftheCPIO/AppellateAuthority.
21. In the matter of Krishna Verma vs. Delhi Police North West District,
(CIC/SS/A/12/001669decidedon6.5.2013),quotingaboveciteddecisions,theCICheld:.....
itiswellunderstoodthatcasediarymaintainedbythepoliceisaprivilegeddocumentandall
thedetailsespeciallyrelatingtotheidentityofthewitnessneedstobeprotected.However,
theappellanthasreliedupontheJudgmentoftheHonbleDelhiHighCourtinthematterof
Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. D.K Sharma wherein the trial proceedings had
concludedandtheaccusedwasconvicted.TheCommissionconcurswiththeviewtakenby
theCentralInformationCommissioninthepreviousordersthatthereisawellestablished
procedureinlawtoensurenaturaljusticeandthatthedisclosureofthecopiesofthecase
diaryatthisstagemayimpedetheprocessofprosecution.
22.Intheabovecasethedisclosurewasdeniedastherewereapprehensionsofimpeding
the process of prosecution. In this case, the PIO of Directorate of Prosecution did not
advancethepleaofdisclosurewouldimpedetheprocessofprosecution.
23.Aspersection172thepolicehastomaintainthecasediary,whichestablishedthefact
that public authority was holding that information. It is meant to be used by court for
ascertaining the reasons for framing charges or dropping them. There is no specific
prohibitionagainstitsdisclosuretopersonsotherthanaccused.
24.Anothersignificantquestioniswhetheranydocumentheldbypublicauthorityhastobe
given under RTI to any citizen? As per the RTI Act, 2005 RTI is subject to exceptions

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page7

mentionedunderSection8.ThussubjecttoSection8,thecasediariescanbedisclosed
underprovisotoexemptions. Hencesection172doesnothaveanyconflictwithRTIAct.
Evenifthereisaconflict,theRTIActwillprevailaspersection22ofRTIAct.
25.ThePIOhasalsoinvokedSection126oftheIndianEvidenceAct,whichsays:
S.126.Professionalcommunications.Nobarrister,attorney,pleaderorvakilshall
atanytimebepermitted,unlesswithhisclientsexpressconsent,todiscloseany
communicationmadetohiminthecourseandforthepurposeofhisemploymentas
suchbarrister,pleader,attorneyorvakil,byoronbehalfofhisclient,ortostatethe
contentsorconditionofanydocumentwithwhichhehasbecomeacquaintedinthe
courseandforthepurposeofhisprofessionalemployment,ortodiscloseanyadvice
givenbyhimtohisclientinthecourseandforthepurposeofsuchemployment:
Providedthatnothinginthissectionshallprotectfromdisclosure
(1)Anysuchcommunicationmadeinfurtheranceofanyillegalpurpose;"
(2)Anyfactobservedbyanybarrister,pleader,attorneyorvakil,inthecourseofhis
employmentassuch,showingthatanycrimeorfraudhasbeencommittedsincethe
commencement of his employment. It is immaterial whether the attention of such
barrister,2[pleader],attorneyorvakilwasorwasnotdirectedtosuchfactbyoron
behalfofhisclient.Explanation.Theobligationstatedinthissectioncontinuesafter
theemploymenthasceased.Illustrations
(a)A,aclient,saystoB,anattorneyIhavecommittedforgery,andIwishyouto
defendme.Asthedefenceofamanknowntobeguiltyisnotacriminalpurpose,this
communicationisprotectedfromdisclosure.
(b)A,aclient,saystoB,anattorneyIwishtoobtainpossessionofpropertybythe
use of aforged deed on which I request you to sue. Thiscommunication, being
madeinfurtheranceofacriminalpurpose,isnotprotectedfromdisclosure.
(c)A,beingchargedwithembezzlement,retainsB,anattorney,todefendhim.Inthe
courseoftheproceedings,BobservesthatanentryhasbeenmadeinAsaccount
book,chargingAwiththesumsaidtohavebeenembezzled,whichentrywasnotin
thebookatthecommencementofhisemployment.ThisbeingafactobservedbyB
inthecourseofhisemployment,showingthatafraudhasbeencommittedsincethe
commencementoftheproceedings,itisnotprotectedfromdisclosure.

26.ThePIOcontendedthattheCDfurnishedbypolicetotheprosecutionisaprivileged
communicationundersection126oftheEvidenceAct. Thissectionsaysthatunlessthe
clientexpresseshisconsentfordisclosureofcommunicationmadetohimforthepurposeof
employingadvocate,heshallnotdisclose.Theprofessionalcommunicationalsoincludethe
advice given by the advocate to his client in the course and for the purpose of such
employment of advocate. However, there is a significant proviso which says the
CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page8

communicationforillegalpurposeorshowinganycrimeorfraud,shallnotbeprotected.
Thismeansforpublicpurpose,intheinterestofjustice,theprotectiontothiscommunication
couldbewithdrawn.
27.Theappellantisallegingthatnondisclosureofcopyofpolicefilewillfavourthepolice
accusedandwillputtheappellantadvocatewhoisinjuredintheclashtodisadvantage.The
veryfactthatthepolicedepartmentusedthediscretionarypowerinitscommandandclosed
thecaseagainstthepoliceaccused,whilecontinuingitagainstadvocateaccusedgaverise
tosuspicionofdepartmentalbiasinfavourofPolice.Anotherrelevantfactoristhatthecourt
of law has already rejected the closure of the case against the police accused and
summonedthem,whichconfirmsthesuspicion.Thereisapublicinterestinrevealingthe
casediaryregardingtheincidentswhichformedbasisforbookingacriminalcaseandlater
droppingitagainstthepoliceaccused.Thematterisalreadyinthepublicdomainandbefore
theCourtunderexamination.Thecounterargumentonthispointiswhencourthasalready
openedthecaseagainstpoliceaccused,disclosuredoesnotserveanypurpose,andalso
thattheinformationisalreadyavailableincourt.
28.Section126oftheEvidenceActappliestoatransactionbetweenanindividualandthe
advocateinanindividualcase.HerethecommunicationisbetweentheStatewhichisthe
representativeofpeoplefunctioningwithanobligationtoinvestigateandtheDirectorateof
Prosecution, which also is a public agency working with an objective to prosecute the
accusedpersonsinpublicinterest,relatingtoapublicwrong.Crimeisconsideredaserious
wrongagainstpublic,wheresocietyisalsoavictimapartfromindividualvictim.
29. Section126oftheEvidenceActprotectsthecommunicationfrombeingadducedas
evidence in the court of law, but does not prohibit disclosure for purposes other than
evidence.TheRTIActdealswithinformationandnotevidence.Whetherinformationgiven
under RTI Act could be used as evidence or not depends upon the application of the
provisionsofIndianEvidenceAct.AsfarastheinformationisconcernedtheRTIActwill
prevailbasedonthedefinitionofInformationunderSection2(f)andSection8ofRTIAct.
CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page9

30.Accordingtosection2(f)ofRTIAct,opinionsandadvicesformpartofinformation.Only
legislative or parliamentary privilege is protected under Section 8 (1) (c) and no other
communicationisprotectedunderRTIActunderthecategoryofprivilege.HenceSection126
ofEvidenceActcannotcomeinthewayofdisclosure,whichcannotbemadeforthepurpose
ofevidenceincourtoflawandthusitwillnotapplytodisclosureasinformation.
31.Thoughnotclaimedbytherespondentauthority,assumingthatsection8(1)(e)canbe
arguedasarestrictionagainstdisclosureonthegroundofinformationavailablewithaperson
inhisfiduciarycapacity,thelargerpublicinterestfavoursdisclosureofthesame.Itisrelevant
toexamineSection8(1)(g),whichsaysthattheinformation,thedisclosureofwhichwould
endangerthelifeorphysicalsafetyofanypersonoridentifythesourceofinformationor
assistancegiveninconfidenceforlawenforcementorsecuritypurposes,shouldnotbegiven.
Theremaybesuchinformationinpolicefilewhichattractthisexception.Suchinformation
shouldnotbegiven.AnotherexemptionunderSection8(1)(h)istheinformationwhichwould
impedetheprocessofinvestigationorapprehensionorprosecutionofoffendersneednotbe
given.Inthiscasetheappellantisseekinginformationaboutclosureofinvestigationand
prosecution.Theappellantsaysthathewasseekingthecopyofpolicefiletoknowwhyand
how the investigation and prosecution against policeaccused was closed. As police has
alreadyclosedinvestigationandtheappellantwantstheprosecutiontogoon,thepublic
authoritycannotshowthisasreasonfordenialofinformation. Consideringthatcourthas
orderedagainstclosureandstartedprosecution,theinformationsoughtcannotimpedethe
prosecution.Astheinvestigationagainstpoliceaccusedisstoppedbypolice,ifthepolicefile
isdisclosedtotheappellant,hemightquestionthatclosurewasnotlegalanddemandfor
prosecution.Infactthatwasthepublicpurposeaccordingtoappellant.Thecounterpointis
thatifCDismadedisclosableunderRTIAct,whichisotherwisenotdisclosableunderCode
ofCriminalProcedurealltheCDswillbeopenedforpublicwhichmightseriouslyaffector
impedeallpendinginvestigationsalloverthecountry.HeretheCommissioninvokessection
8(2)whichsaysinformationcouldbegivenifdisclosureoutweighsharmtotheprotected

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page10

interest.Inthiscasedisclosuremightseriouslyharmtheprotectedinterestswithreferenceto
allpresentandfutureinvestigations.
32. It was strongly contended: If the police really requires protection to a particular
informationfornationalsecurityorpublicinterest,thatisfacilitatedundertheRTIAct. But
hereitisthecaseof nondisclosureofinformationclaimingprotectionforthepurposeof
hidingbias,partialityordifferentialtreatment,withreferencetothetwopoliceaccused.The
police cannot discriminatebetween the policeaccusedandpursue againsttheadvocate
accusedwithvengeance.Thepeoplealongwiththeappellanthaverighttoknowthedetails
ofthepolicefilepertainingtoclosureofthecasesagainstthepoliceaccused.Inthiscontext
itisrelevanttorefertosomemorecasesonthetopic.
33. In the case of the Superintendent, Office of the Public Prosecutor v. The
Registrar,TamilNaduInformationCommission.W.P.NO.20574of2009andM.P.NO.1OF
2009, decided on 5th

January, 2010, by

Madras High Court

(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288119/),itwasheld:
ThoughtheofficeofthePublicProsecutorisaPublicAuthorityandcomesunderthepurview
oftheRighttoInformationAct,thePublicProsecutorisalsoanAdvocateandhecouldnot
furnishtheinformationsoughtfortotheothers,withouttheconsentofhisclient.TheCourt
hascategoricallyheldthatinviewofSection126oftheIndianEvidenceActr/wRulesframed
underSection49(1)(c)oftheAdvocatesAct,thereisaprohibitionfortheadvocatesfrom
committingbreachofobligationimposedbySection126oftheIndianEvidenceAct.

34.Itisfurtherheld:
ThesecondrespondentnotonlywantedtheopiniontenderedbythePublicProsecutorto
theStatebutalsoalltheirlettersandcorrespondencewithreferencetotheFIRandthe
judgment in the criminal appeal. Such information is completely privileged and
disclosureofthesameisbarredbySection126oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Therefore,
thecontentionbythelearnedSeniorcounselappearingforthefirstrespondentCommission
thatintermsofSection8(1)(e)oftheRTIAct,thePublicProsecutorwillhavetomovethe
InformationCommissionforsatisfyingthenondisclosureofsuchinformation.Thatquestionis
unnecessarywhenthereisastatutorybarimposedbyananotherstatute.(Para.14)
Section22oftheRTIActcannotundoubtedlyoverrideSection126oftheIndianEvidence
Act.TherulesframedunderSection49(1)(c)oftheAdvocatesAct,1961,clearlyprohibita
counseldirectlyorindirectlyfromcommittingbreachoftheobligationimposedbySection126

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page11

oftheIndianEvidenceAct.AcarefulreadingofSection126oftheIndianEvidenceActaswell
asthestandardsofprofessionalconductframedunderSection49(1)(c)oftheAdvocatesAct,
1961willclearlyshowthatitisnotasifthisinformationcannotbeaskedfromtheGovernment
directlyratherthanaskingacounseltodivulgethenatureoftheadvicetenderedbyhim.
ThoughtheofficeofthePublicProsecutorisapublicauthority,theActonlyenjoinsuponhim
tofurnishsuchinformation,whichareavailablewithhimtobefurnishedsubjecttoSection
8(1)(e)oftheAct. Butifthecommunicationisprivilegeandwiththeexpresspermissionof
the client, it can be furnished, it is not expected of the Public Prosecutor to furnish the
information after getting permission of his client, i.e. the State of Tamil Nadu. Such a
contingencyisnotcontemplatedprovidedundertheAct.(Para.18&19)

35.TheMadrasHighCourtopinedthatthepolicewouldbeappropriatepublicauthorityto
provide the information sought as it would be inappropriate for the prosecution wing to
discloseinformation,whichitheldwithoutconsentoftheclient,i.e.,thepolice.
36. Inthiscase,theCommissionfindsthattheDirectorateofProsecutionshouldhave
ascertainedtheviewsofthepolicebeforeitsdecisioninthisRTIrequest.ThePIOstatedthat
the information sought wasalready before the concerned court oflaw, which means the
policeconsentedtodisclosethecasediary.TheprotectionunderSection126ofEvidence
Actwaswaivedandaccesswasprovided.
37.Thepolicedepartmentwasnotpartytothissecondappealandtheirviewswerenoton
therecordtoexplaintheharmthatmightresultfromthedisclosureofCD.Itisnotpossibleto
directdisclosureofCDwithoutascertaintheviewsofPoliceinthiscase.
38.Bethatasitmay,thequestionbeforeCommissioniswhetherthePIOcandenyorallow
theentireCaseDiary(CD)orprovidepartinformationundercasediaryorpolicefilesought
bytheappellant,asperCriminalProcedureCodeandtheEvidenceAct,butalsounderthe
provisionsofRighttoInformationAct,2005.ItisarguedbytheRespondentAuthoritythat,the
CD will contain minute details of investigation, dates and places of visits by various
investigators,privateaspectsofseveralpersons,securitythreateninginformationetc,and
thusifsuchCDisallowedtobediscloseditwillthreatentheprocessofpolicefunctioningand
seriouslyimpedetheinvestigationsandprosecutioninallcasesandthusevenunderRTIAct,

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page12

itcannotbedisclosed.AsthechargesheetiscontainingsubstantialpartofCD,thereisno
needtodiscloseCDseparately.Anydisclosureofinformationwhichresultsinsecuritythreat
to any person/witness etc, or which is given in fiduciary capacity, or which causes
unwarranted invasion of privacy etc need not be given. The information to the extent of
servingpublicinterestasclaimedbytheappellantaloneshouldbegiven.Inthelightof
discussionabove,basedonprovisionsofSection172ofCodeofCriminalProcedureand
Section8(1)and(2)ofRTIAct,theCommissionfindsthatthereisprotectionavailableforthe
CDagainstdisclosureandinlargerpublicinterestitcannotberevealed.
39.HencetheCommissiondirectsthePIOofDirectorateofProsecutionandPIOofthe
concernedPolicedepartment,toinformthereasonsforconcludingthatpoliceaccusedneed
not be prosecuted along with advocateaccused in the said incident, as that is in public
interestanditisnotexemptedonanyofthegroundsunderSection8(1)ofRTIAct,orany
otherlaw,within15daysfromthedateofreceiptofthisorder.

40.Theappealisdisposedofaccordingly.

(MSridharAcharyulu)
InformationCommissioner
Authenticatedtruecopy

(BabuLal)
DeputyRegistrar
Addressofparties
1. TheCPIOundertheRTIAct,Govt.ofDelhi

DirectorateofProsecution
CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page13

TisHazariCourtComplex,Delhi110054

2. ShriArunSharma

H.No.326,Village&PO:Samalka,
NewDelhi

3. ThePIOundertheRTIAct,Govt.ofDelhi

S.H.O.,PoliceStation
Kapashera,
DELHI

4. TheFirstAppellantAuthorityundertheRTIAct,Govt.ofDelhi
DirecotrateofProsecution,RoomNo.223,
TisHazariCourtComplex
Delhi54

CIC/SA/A/2015/000136

Page14