Decision No. - CIC

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
…..
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00074
Dated the 1 st June, 2006
Appellant:
Smt. Guninder Gill, A-1/237, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.
Respondents: Shri Muktesh Chander, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime), PHQ,
2 nd Floor, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
Shri Ranjit Narayan, Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crime), Police
Headquarters, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
This is an appeal by Smt. Guninder Gill against the order dated 21.3.06 of the JCP
(Crime), the appellate authority who had upheld the order dated 19.1.06 of the Addl.
Commissioner of Police (Crime), CPIO. The appellant through her petition dated the 29 th
December, 05 sought from the Addl. CP (Crime), Delhi Police, CPIO, the disclosure of a
host of information. The range of information solicited was fairly exhaustive which was
listed ad seriatim in the RTI petition of the appellant (Annex-I).
2. The CPIO, Addl. CP (Crime), PIO/Crime, Delhi, Shri Muktesh Chander replied
on 19.1.06 to the appellant stating as follows:-
“It is to inform you that case FIR No. 395/2004 u/s 406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC
PS Connaught Place was registered on your complaint. After investigation of the
case, charge sheet was filed in the Hon’ble trial court of MM, Patiala House,
where the case is pending trial and is at prosecution evidence stage. The next date
of hearing in the case is fixed for 31.1.2006. The EOW has informed that
throughout the investigation of the above FIR, you were kept informed of the
developments in investigation.
The information/documents sought for pertaining to the above case fall under the
“Exemptions from disclosure of information. Thus, the information/documents
sought for by you cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
Against this denial you may file an appeal to the appellate authority i.e. Joint
Commissioner of Police, Crime, Delhi, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, New Delhi
within the stipulated time as per provisions in the above said Act, if so desired.”
…..2

: 2 :
3. The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the first appellate authority through
her appeal petition. The Joint Commissioner of Police and the appellate authority, Shri
Ranjit Narayan, passed the order on the appellant’s first appeal on 21.3.06. The order in
the first appeal stated the position taken by the police authorities in respect of each item
of information requested by the appellant. These are fairly elaborate and are annexed to
this order at Annex II .
4. Not satisfied with the replies of the appellate autholrity, Smt. Guninder Gill,
appellant, brought the matter to this Commission for final disposal.
5. The appellant, the appellate authority and the CPIO were called. The appellant
was present while the appellate authority and the CPIO were represented by Shri
Muktesh Chander, Addl. CP/Crime and Shri Prabhakar, DCP/EOW, Delhi Police.
6. Upon hearing the arguments in the case we notice that there is a certain lack of
clarity regarding what exact information the appellant now needs after what she has
already received from the public authority through its CPIO. The appellant may,
therefore, send a clarificatory letter to the CPIO listing the exact information she requires.
The CPIO shall process the appellant’s communication within 10 days of its receipt as
per the provisions of the RTI Act and make a suitable response.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
Sd/-
(A.N. TIWARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Sd/-
(PROF. M.M. ANSARI)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
(P.K. GERA)
REGISTRAR
Address of parties:
1. Smt. Guninder Gill, A-1/237, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.
2. Shri Muktesh Chander, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime), PHQ, 2 nd Floor,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
3. Shri Ranjit Narayan, Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crime), Police Headquarters,
MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

.i'
,/
/
/"
/
,l
11.
Guninder Kaur Gill A-1/237 Safdar
Jung Enclave New Delhi 110 029
> .••••• .,
/
Ap plica (ion lJ neier Ri g h t to I n form a tio!l A. c.:t: Tli ro ugh the Office of Commissioner
of Police dated December 2

.,..'
/ ,;',
/ '
}-ience , under the RT1 Act please inform to the undersigned:
/
/
.
'
i. Was any investigation cC;l1ducted as slated in the charge sheet to ascertain the
complicity of DB?
ii. If yes, what were the results?
2. Vide the undersigned's letter dated 20.6.05addressed to Jt CP (Crime), it was
mentioned that the procedure in German Courts is that the claimant or representative can
also sell the claim in the tbird party's name-in this regardthe undersigned requested the
Crime Branch to re-write to Deutsche Bank to obtain the written statement of their
German HO officials on this point.
Hence under the RTI please'inform the undersigned:
i. Was any clarification sought by the Crime Gr~ll1ch on this pom! from Deutsche Bank
German officials?
ii.lf so, a certified copy of the letter and the reply 01' ll1\ .. ~ Deutsche Bank
officials be provided,
3.As per the Indian Evidence Act, a statement of the

/
/
4. Vide the undersigned's letter dated 21.09.04 addressed to the DCP
(EOW). allegations were leveled against a family member of BN Singhvi
(accused) viz. KK Singhvi. The lette: described the role of KK Singhvi and
request was made to take further statement of the complainant and further
statement of her husband. At the same time, fee receipts issued by the office
ofKK Singhvi for professional fees ofBN Singhvi and the so called German
lawyer allegedly engaged by them, were handed over to the Crime Branch by
the undersigned.A representation dated June 20.2004 was made to Jt. CP
(Crime), strongly protesting at the lack of corsnizal1ce taken of the complaint
by the EOW in the matter or even reply thereof.
In this regard kindly provide the following infonnatio!\ under the RTI Act.
1. Was any further statement of the complainant and her husband recorded
with respect to the involvement of Sh IU( Singhvi by the Crime Branch
or not?
12. If yes, can the undersigned be supplied with a certified copy of the same?
13. Whether the role of Sh KK Singhvi in this entire episode has been
lV.
\'
investigated or not? .
If yes, undersigned be provided with a certified copy of the same.
'vYhat was the conclusion of the Crimt: 8r~lnch \-vi Lh rc~;pect to the
complicity of Sh KK Singhvi in the above case?
5. Shl' Raj at Singhvi and BN Singhvi were 2d:;o named by another
compbinant, Sh BKSood in his FIR registered with the ('rime Branch.
Vide the undersigned (s letter dated 21.09.04 and 14.01.05 add ressed to Jt.
CP (Crime), the undersigned brought to the attention or ~he Crime Bral1ch
the role of other family members of the accused i.e wi Fe and son of accused'
BN Singhvi, and to further investigate their complicity in the crime. It was also
p9inted out by the undersigned that there was a similiarity in the style of
signature-between the forged documents in the two cases i.e the above FIR
r~gistered on the complaint of the undersigned and the FIR registered on the
complCl.int of Sh BK Sood and the Nasik Forgery Case registered against BN
Singhvi .. The undersigned's husband also stated the role of the accused's
wife Smt. Asha Singhvi in his statement to the Crime Branch.
Under the Right to Information Act, please inform the undersigned:
(VJv?
:IN

./
,/
.-
If any investigation was done by the C:-:me Branch with respect to these allegations
concerning Sh Rajat Singhvi and Smt Asha Singhvi or not?
~I 1 f yes, what was the conclusion of the invesr igation?
3. Cenified copy of repon/findings/illvestiealion of Cr~me Branch be provided.
4. \Vere any specimen signatures of Sh Rajat Singhvi and Srnt Asha Singhvi obtained for
purposes of examination and comparison wi lh the fabricated
documents? .
5.! If yes, certified copies of the same to be supplied to undersigned including copy of the
FSL expert opinion with respect to the same.
6. The charge sheet made by the Crime Branch relies solely on the reply of certain
officials of Deutsche Bank India who have clari fied that they have based their reply
solely on some records provided by their Singapore Branch vide their letters dated
6.12.05 and 25.04.05.
Under the Right to Information Act, kindly inform me :
L Did the Crime Branch send aDY letter of rogatory to Deutsche Bank
in Germany to obtain the 'answers in a format which is legally admissible as
evidence as per the Indian Evidence /\c1')
il. If yes, certified copy of the same and replv thereof be provicled to the undersigned.
IlL If not, what is the legal basis of the administrati '/1.: dec ision nOl to send
the Jetter rogatory in terms of the Indian Evidence ,'-\Ct'J
lV. \Vhat is the evidential vahle of the statemtnt or Deutsche Bank
Mumbai officials based on records solely or Deutsche Bank Singapore Branch with
respect to filing of a case against Deutsche Bank in Germany? Would it be
considered as "!Jroved", "disproved or "unproved" as per the Indian Evidence Act.
v. In this regard, if the crime branch has taken any lega! opinion of the Public
Prosecutor, the same be supplied.
~ uflJ../\A
/j/,J '
/
7.0n complaining about the role of Sh. Rajat Singhvi,son of accused in the above
crime,the undersigned had requested the Crime Branch to seize the computer used in
the office ofBN Singhvi and send it for analysis.

/
/
(
,,-
Under the Right to Information Act, kind!)' inform me if the Crime Branch
sent the hard disk of the computer used in the office of BN S :.nghvi for
analysis to the Forensic Science Labv~rory 3S requested?
1." If yes, a certified copy of the report may be provided to the undersigned.
ii. A certified copy of the dump of the hmcl drive may also be provided to
ascertain if the accused, BN Singbvi engaged in any correspondence
with Deutsche Bank, their sol icitors Messrs Rajah or any third party
negotiating on behalf of Deutsche Bank.
8. The undersigned vide her letter d~lted 26.09.05 addressed to Jt. CP
(Crim.£l had requested the Crime Branch
To fde a certified copy of the correspondence with [kl1l~)d)(~ f3C1llk in the
trial court to enable the complicity or Ueutsche Bank to be established.
Under the Right to Information Act-ple,-~se provide v:ith the following
information:
I. Was the con"espondence with Deutsche Bank as requested tiled by the
Crime Branch in the trial court?
11. Ifnot kindly provide the basis of the adillinistrutive decision, nOl to do so.
9, Vide letter dated 21.09.04 addressed to .It. CP (Crime),the undersigned had
mentioned that the accounts and assets of BN Singhvi be frozen.
In this regard the following information be supplied under th,: RTI Act t.o the
undersigned.
I. Whether any account and assets of BN Singhvi was frozen?
11. If yes, details thereof
1 a.Vide letter dt 16.08.05 the undersiglled had requested that the Bar Council of
Maharastra be intimated where accused BN Singhvi is registered as advocate
vide membership no. 560, to take appropriate action against him
/~ ~
1))/
5

'
,/
" ,.
1.
Undr RTI /I.ct kindly inform the undersigned:
1. ';J~ether Bar Council of Maharashtra was intimated by th. Crime Branch or 11ot?
2. If yes, what action has the Bar Council Of Maharashtra taken?
Certified copies of same be provided.
The reply to this lenel is urgently required to enable the process of initiating action againsl the
other accused in the crime and bringing the crimll1~lis 11.1 justice
Th~;ou
~
Guninder Gill
.
"