Filing of appeals by the prosecutiion in the Sessions Court against the orders of acquittal by the magistrate - police report cases

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2013
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6937 of 2011]
SUBHASH CHAND … APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION). … RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.


Para 16 on wards 

If we analyse Section 378(1)(a) & (b), it is clear that the State Government cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence because of the categorical bar created by Section 378(1)(b). Such appeals, that is appeals against orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence can only be filed in the Sessions Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed by the District Magistrate. Section 378(1)(b) uses the words “in any case” but leaves out orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence from the control of the State Government. Therefore, in all other cases where orders of acquittal are passed appeals can be filed by the Public Prosecutor as
directed by the State Government to the High Court.
17. Sub-Section (4) of Section 378 makes provision for
appeal against an order of acquittal passed in case instituted
upon complaint. It states that in such case if the
complainant makes an application to the High Court and the
High Court grants special leave to appeal, the complainant
may present such an appeal to the High Court. This subsection
speaks of ‘special leave’ as against sub-section (3)
relating to other appeals which speaks of ‘leave’. Thus,
complainant’s appeal against an order of acquittal is a
18
Page 19
category by itself. The complainant could be a private
person or a public servant. This is evident from sub-section
(5) which refers to application filed for ‘special leave’ by the
complainant. It grants six months period of limitation to a
complainant who is a public servant and sixty days in every
other case for filing application. Sub-Section (6) is important.
It states that if in any case complainant’s application for
‘special leave’ under sub-Section (4) is refused no appeal
from order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or
under sub-section (2). Thus, if ‘special leave’ is not granted
to the complainant to appeal against an order of acquittal
the matter must end there. Neither the District Magistrate
not the State Government can appeal against that order of
acquittal. The idea appears to be to accord quietus to the
case in such a situation.
18. Since the words ‘police report’ are dropped from
Section 378(1) (a) despite the Law Commission’s
recommendation, it is not necessary to dwell on it. A police
report is defined under Section 2(r) of the Code to mean a
19
Page 20
report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under
sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is a
culmination of investigation by the police into an offence
after receiving information of a cognizable or a noncognizable
offence. Section 2(d) defines a complaint to
mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate
with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some
person, whether known or unknown has committed an
offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation to
Section 2(d) states that a report made by a police officer in a
case which discloses after investigation, the commission of a
non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint,
and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be
deemed to be the complainant. Sometimes investigation
into cognizable offence conducted under Section 154 of the
Code may culminate into a complaint case (cases under the
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940). Under the PFA Act, cases are
instituted on filing of a complaint before the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate as specified in Section 20 of the PFA
Act and offences under the PFA Act are both cognizable and
20
Page 21
non-cognizable. Thus, whether a case is a case instituted on
a complaint depends on the legal provisions relating to the
offence involved therein. But once it is a case instituted on a
complaint and an order of acquittal is passed, whether the
offence be bailable or non-bailable, cognizable or noncognizable,
the complainant can file an application under
Section 378(4) for special leave to appeal against it in the
High Court. Section 378(4) places no restriction on the
complainant. So far as the State is concerned, as per
Section 378(1)(b), it can in any case, that is even in a case
instituted on a complaint, direct the Public Prosecutor to file
an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate
order of acquittal passed by any court other than High Court.
But there is, as stated by us hereinabove, an important
inbuilt and categorical restriction on the State’s power. It
cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal
from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect
of a cognizable and non-cognizable offence. In such a case
the District Magistrate may under Section 378(1)(a) direct
the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal to the Session Court.
21
Page 22
This appears to be the right approach and correct
interpretation of Section 378 of the Code.
19. Mr. Malhotra is right in submitting that it is only when
Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was
amended in 1955 that the complainant was given a right to
seek special leave from the High Court to file an appeal to
challenge an acquittal order. Section 417 was replaced by
Section 378 in the Code. It contained similar provision. But,
Act No.25 of 2005 brought about a major amendment in the
Code. It introduced Section 378(1)(a) which permitted the
District Magistrate, in any case, to direct the Public
Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from
an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a
cognizable and non-bailable offence. For the first time a
provision was introduced whereunder an appeal against an
order of acquittal could be filed in the Sessions Court. Such
appeals were restricted to orders passed by a Magistrate in
cognizable and non-bailable offences. Section 378(1)(b)
specifically and in clear words placed a restriction on the
22
Page 23
State’s right to file such appeals. It states that the State
Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the High Court from an original or
appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a
High Court not being an order under clause (a) or an order of
acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in revision. Thus, the
State Government cannot present an appeal against an
order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a
cognizable and non-bailable offence. We have already noted
Clause 37 of the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India
and Clause 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Bill, 1994 which state that in order to guard
against the arbitrary exercise of power and to reduce
reckless acquittals Section 378 was sought to be amended to
provide appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a
Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence.
Thus, this step is taken by the legislature to check arbitrary
and reckless acquittals. It appears that being conscious of
rise in unmerited acquittals, in case of certain acquittals, the
legislature has enabled the District Magistrate to direct the
23
Page 24
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Sessions Court,
thereby avoiding the tedious and time consuming procedure
of approaching the State with a proposal, getting it
sanctioned and then filing an appeal.
20. It is true that the State has an overall control over the
law and order and public order of the area under its
jurisdiction. Till Section 378 was amended by Act 25 of 2005
the State could prefer appeals against all acquittal orders.
But the major amendment made in Section 378 by Act 25 of
2005 cannot be ignored. It has a purpose. It does not throw
the concern of security of the community to the winds. In
fact, it makes filing of appeals against certain types of
acquittal orders described in Section 378(1)(a) easier, less
cumbersome and less time consuming. The judgments cited
by Mr. Malhotra pertain to Section 417 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1898 and Section 378 prior to its
amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and will, therefore, have no
relevance to the present case.
24
Page 25
21. In view of the above, we conclude that a complainant
can file an application for special leave to appeal against an
order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He
cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court. In the instant
case the complaint alleging offences punishable under
Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the
Rules is filed by complainant Shri Jaiswal, Local Health
Authority through Delhi Administration. The appellant was
acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi. The complainant can challenge the order
of acquittal by filing an application for special leave to
appeal in the Delhi High Court and not in the Sessions Court.
Therefore, the impugned order holding that this case is not
governed by Section 378(4) of the Code is quashed and set
aside. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed.
……………………………………………..J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
……………………………………………..J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
25

Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST atrocities cases - Bar U/s 18 of the Act - Citation

Andhra High Court

Goluguri Eswara Reddy And Another vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 19 Sept 2014

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO            

CRL.P.No.11055 of 2014

19-09-2014

Goluguri Eswara Reddy and another.....Petitioners

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor. Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11055 of 2014

ORDER:

1.         This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioners/A-1 & A-2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case in P.R.C. No.11 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alamuru, East Godavari District registered against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C read with Section 34 I.P.C and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act).

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The Petitioners are A-1 and A-2. The petitioners moved the Honourable High Court in Crl.P.No.3361 of 2009 for quashing of the proceedings and by order of this Court (another bench)

dated 08.12.2011 while dismissing the application for quashing from prima facie accusation, there was a direction not to arrest pending investigation. It is pursuant to which the police after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet under the above provisions against the accused persons 1 to 4 including the petitioners herein. It appears after taken cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C for committal of the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C, P.R.C. No.11 of 2011 allotted and the case is pending committal stage and before committing as presence of the accused is necessary and he was not arrested earlier by virtue of the order supra of the Honourable High Court, the N.B.W was issued against the accused persons for execution of N.B.W and production of them by showing in abscondence after completion of the investigation for the concession not available beyond investigation completion. It is because of the N.B.Ws pending, this application for anticipatory bail application is filed. Even post cognizance of such pending of N.B.W is not a bar for maintainability of anticipatory bail as held by the Full Bench of this Court, the decision referred in Smt.Sheik Khasim Bi V. The State .

4. However, coming to the facts, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act, but for maintainability of the anticipatory bail, as there is a prima facie accusation as accused insulted by way of abuse in

public view by touching the caste name of the defacto-complainant to attract the Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Coming to the bar under Section 18 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Shobhan Singh Khanka V. State of Jharkhand drawing attention of this Court to para 22 so also to para 14, wherein it was held that personal liberty is a fundamental right and imposition of conditions as laid down in Section 438 Cr.P.C are to be applied or not to be specified. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the decision of this Court in Paracha Mohan Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh , and drawn attention to para 11 which clearly speaks irrespective of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, a bail application is maintainable and it is for the Court to consider whether the allegations in the complaint or F.I.R attracts the prohibition under Section 18 of the Act or a case to grant anticipatory bail. It is clearly observed at the end of para 11 that when the allegations mentioned in the first information report/complaint in their entirety do not attract a particular offence under the Act, then the High Court or the Court of Session can exercise their discretion to grant anticipatory bail.

5. In fact, the Apex Court in the very recent expression in Bachu Das V. State of Bihar , wherein at para 6 by referring to para 9 of the earlier expression in Vilas Panduranga Pawar V. State of

Maharashtra observed as under: 6. It is clear that the learned Magistrate carefully perused the complaint petition, as well as the statement of the complaint and four witnesses examined during enquiry and arrived at a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons that the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, is made out. In such circumstance and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the learned counsel relying on the decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar V. State of Maharashtra, submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail. In similar circumstances, this Court has considered the offence under Section 3(1),  as well as the bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and concluded as under:

“9. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking section 438 Cr.P.C. However, a duty is cast on the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accuse persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

9) The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Sections 438 Cr.P.C is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence”.

6. From the expression of the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that when the allegations indicate abusing the complainant with caste name with intent to humiliate, it is a bar for maintaining the application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C, in view of Section 18 of the Act.

7. Now, from the proposition of law adverting to the facts covered by the complaint given by the

defacto-complainant for registration of the crime, which is annexed to the application, it refers to

pointing out the occurrence and also abusing in caste name with intent to insult by the petitioners.

When such are the averments in the complaint abusing in caste name in public view with an intent to insult, there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act for anticipatory bail, and thereby whether it is false accusation or whether there is any truth in the allegations cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court for the purpose of bail application as per above law. Thus, it is not a case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners from the bar; though otherwise the facts deserve consideration of bail.

8. Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 to move regular bail application and surrender before the learned Special Judge concerned and after notice to the Public Prosecutor and in such an event, the learned Judge

shall consider for granting of bail in favour of the petitioners with necessary conditions preferably

on the same day. The learned Judge in granting bail as per directions supra can impose necessary

conditions which include furnishing of address proof with bank account particulars if any for

securing presence before Court non- interference with witnesses and the like.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

__________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J, 19th September, 2014

Consumer Cases filing procedure in Telangana/A.P

PROCEDURE TO FILE A CASE BEFORE STATE COMMISSION
CONSUMER COMPLAINT: (Under Section 17 (a) (i) of C.P. Act)
Where value of the goods or services and compensation exceeds Rupees from 20 lakhs up to one crore, the complaints can be filed with the Registry of State Commission. Complaint should be accompanied by the necessary documents and verified affidavit of the Complainant.
1. Required copies: 4 + Sufficient additional Copies for each Opposite parties.
2. Limitation : Complaint filed with in two years from the cause of action arisen
(personal/legal notice must serve to other side before filing the Case)
3. Court Fee:
· Above twenty lakhs and up to fifty lakhs : Rs. 2,000/-
· Above fifty lakhs and up to one crore : Rs. 4,000/-
· Demand Draft in the name of “The Registrar, A P State Commission,
Hyderabad” payable at Hyderabad only
FIRST APPEAL: (Under Section 15 of C.P. Act.)
First Appeal can be filed by appeals against the order of any District Forum within the state.
1. Memorandum of grounds of Appeal along with correct name of parties their Addresses
2. Certified copy of the District Consumer Forum order.
3. No. Of copies required for filing the appeal: 4 + Sufficient additional Copies for each
Respondents.
4. Appeal to be filed within 30 days from the Date of receipt of District Consumer Forum Order
5, Any Condone Delay/interim orders/Other Petitions to be submit along with Affidavit with deponent signatures
6. Statutory Deposit: Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of Award/Compensation amount which ever is less to be deposited by Appellant/Opposite Parties.
7. Court fee is not required to file Appeal
REVISION PETITION: (Under Section 17 (1) (b) of C.P. Act.)
Revision petition can be filed by challenging the Interlocutory Applications Orders of the
District Consumer Fora while Complaint is pending at District Consumer Fora
1. Memorandum of Grounds of Revision Petition
2. Certified copy of the IA order along with Petition, Complaint and counter on the file of
District Consumer Forum
3. No. of copies required for filing the Revision Petition: 4 + Sufficient Additional Copies for Respondents.
4. Revision Petition to be filed within 90 days.
5. Court fee is not required to file Revision Petition
EXECUTION APPLICATION: (Under Section 27C.P.Act)
Execution application can be filed when final order not complied with in time
1. Execution Application
2. Certified copy of the C.C. Order. Along with Vakalath
3. No. Of copies required for filing the execution Petition: 4 +Sufficient Additional Copies for opposite parties
CHEQUE PETITION (Under Rule 232 C.R.P)
Cheque Petition can be filed by the Parties to with draw the deposited amount in full/part
awarded
1. Advance Stamp Receipt duly identified by the Counsel on Record
2. Payment schedule (Form No. 59, Rule 165 C.R.P
3. Memo of Part/Full satisfaction duly signed by the Party and Counsel on Record
4. Affidavit
5. Cheque Petition U/r 232 C.R.P.
6. Proof of identification ( Ration card/Pan card/identify card issued by the Election
Commission/Pattadar Pass Book

PROCEDURE TO FILE A CASE BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
CONSUMER CASE :( Under Section 12 of C.P. Act)
Where value of the goods or services and compensation exceeds Rupees up to 20 lakhs. The
complaints can be filed with the Registry of District Consumer Forum. Complaint should be
accompanied by the necessary documents and verified affidavit of the Complainant
1. Required copies: 4 +Sufficient additional sets for each Opposite Parties.
2. Limitation: Complaint is to be filed within two years.
3. Pecuniary Jurisdiction: up to Rs.20 lakhs.
4. Court Fee:
· Up to one lakh Rupees – NIL who are under the Below Poverty Line holding Antyodaya
Anna Yojana cards.
· up to Rs.1 Lakh : Rs.100/-
· Above Rs.1 lakh up to Rs.5 Lakhs : Rs.200/-
· Above Rs.5 lakhs up to Rs.10 Lakhs : Rs.400/-
· Above Rs.10 lakhs up to Rs.20 Lakhs : Rs.500/-
EXECUTION APPLICATION (Under Section 27C.P.Act)
Execution application can be filed when final order not complied with in time
1. Execution Application
2. Certified copy of the C.C. Order.
3. No. Of copies required for filing the Revision Petition: 4 +Sufficient Additional Copies for Respondents.
CHEQUE PETITION (Under Rule 232 C.R.P)
Cheque Petition can be filed by the Parties to with draw the deposited amount in full/part
awarded
1. Advance Stamp Receipt duly identified by the Counsel on Record
2. Payment schedule (Form No. 59, Rule 165 C.R.P
3. Memo of Part/Full satisfaction duly signed by the Party and Counsel on Record
4. Affidavit
5. Cheque Petition U/r 232 C.R.P.
6. Proof of identification ( Ration card/Pan card/identify card issued by the Election
Commission/Pattadar Pass Book

Lookout notice- red corner notice - Guidelines issued by delhi high court - It can be rescinded by the Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI  Date of Order: August 11, 2010 W.P.(Crl.) No. 1315/2008 DT: 11.08.2010
 SUMER SINGH SALKAN ... Petitioner Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia with Mr. Bandan Kumar, Advocates Versus
ASSTT. DIRECTOR & ORS. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI, Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP for the State, Mr. D.K. Sharma, SHO, P.S. Alipur. and

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
WP (Crl.) No. 1315 of 2008 & Crl. R. No. 1 of 2006 Page 16 of 16
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.

Failure of the party to claim the notice sent through Registered Post to his last known address would therefore qualify as “ deemed service”

Failure of the party to claim the notice sent through  Registered Post to his last known address would therefore qualify as “ deemed service”

D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nande Belliappa (1) 2006(3) ALT (Crl) 276 SC = 2006 6 SCC 456

2015 (4) ALT 447, CRP 4904 of 2013  Pushmala Reddy Vs Janga Raghava Reddy.

RTI Act -Frivolous applications not to be entertained

Frivolous applications not to be entertained In the case of S.K. Lal vs. Ministry of Railways (Appeal No. CIC /OK /A / 2006 /00268-272, dt: 29.12.2006) the applicant had filed five applications to the railway authorities asking for “ all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the Railways. The public authority, however, did not provide him with the information requested. DECISION: The Central Information Commission observed that though the RTI Act allows citizen to seek any information other than the 10 categories exempted under Section 8, it does not mean that the public authorities are required to entertain to all sort of frivolous applications. The CIC held that asking for “all the records” regarding various services and categories of staff in the railways, “only amounts to making a mockery of the Act

Employees seeking information relating to promotions and other decisions taken by higher authorities -RTI Act- Decison of CIC

The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of seeking information. In the case of Dr. K.C. Vijayakumaran Nair Vs Department of Post, the appellant had sought following information. The name of the officer who raised the query as to whether the appellant had taken permission of the respondent for joining a Ph.D. course; and The name of the officer who took the decision to relieve the appellant while he was posted at Shimla and whether the officer was competent to take such decision. He had also sought `file notings‟ with respect to the above. The CPIO informed him that his relieving order was issued in compliance with the orders of DG (Posts). As regards disclosure of `file notings‟, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, on the ground that `file notings‟ was confidential. The appellant made his first appeal and the appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. DECISION: The information sought has been furnished, except the `file notings‟ with regard to the official who raised the query as to whether the appellant had obtained the official permission for doing the Ph.D course. The part of `file notings‟ containing the orders of the DG (Posts) for relieving him from the post, the then held by the appellant has been similarly denied. The `file notings‟ in the instant case, contain information relating to transfer/posting. The competent authority of the respondent may have taken the decision keeping in view of the overall interests of the respondent. It is, therefore, not for any employee, how-so-ever he may be affected, to know as to why or how the decision was taken by the competent authority. The disclosure of such information is not in the public interest as the appellant has asked for the information for promotion of his personal interest. Therefore, the CPIO is justified in denying the information sought, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in
- 23 -
the garb of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the government employees are seeking information for promotion of their personal interest. This is done on the pretext of serving the public cause, without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self-interest. This appeal is in no way exception. In the instant case, the information seeker and the provider being part of the same system should work together for evolving approaches to remove irritants in their mutual interaction, as a lot of public resources devoted to provide service to the entire Indian community is thus un-productively used. They ought to exercise restraints in misusing the Act, lest they should dilute the mandate of RTI Act to empower the common man.

Application Under RTI not maintainable where invetigation is pending -CIC decision

Information can not be disclosed till the investigations are over. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain V/s Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New Delhi Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000969/SS The Appellant sought the detail of complete proceedings / records of the investigation being carried out against the appellant with regard to enquiry in to the Lakhanpur and Bhanuth / Shambhu check posts in J & K and Punjab respectively as the SCN in the matter has been issued and the investigations are complete. The CPIO denied the information to the Appellant under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by stating that the investigation in the matter are still pending in view of Hon‟ble CIC‟s decision in the case of Shri Shankar Sharma and M/s First Global Stock broking Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Directorate of Income Tax, Mumbai.

RTI Applications filed before Courts for furnishing copies of orders or judgments etc., Decision of CIC

Appellant can not take recourse to the RTI Act to challenge a judicial decision regarding disclosure of a given set of information.

In the case of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Appeal NO.CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007), it was held that Judicial Authority must function with total independence and freedom, should it be found that the action initiated under the RTI Act impinges upon the authority of that Judicial body, the Commission will not authorize the use of RTI Act for any such disclosure requirement.