The
Times of India: Mumbai: Sunday, October 14, 2012.
In an order
that comes as a warning to public servants under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act, the state information commission recently ordered two cops to show cause
why no disciplinary action and penalty of Rs 10,000 each be imposed against
them for having furnished "false and incomplete information" to an
applicant about a theft case registered with the Juhu police 22 years ago.
The
commission's order is against senior police inspector Deepak Katkade and his
assistant Ashok Pimple for information given to Yogacharya Anandji Joshi in
2010. The case is "an example of how transparency is a casualty,
accountability is missing and only thanks to RTI is the void being filled to
some extent," said Joshi.
In 1990,
Joshi had lodged an FIR with the Juhu police station after two of his yoga
institute signboards went missing from the premises. The accused were three
persons, including his landlord Jay Hind CHS, then secretary and chairperson
and a security supervisor. Joshi occupies 2,500 sq ft on the ground floor as a
tenant.
The theft, he
alleged, occurred as his tenancy suit was pending in the small causes court. In
April 2006, another theft allegedly worth Rs 10 lakh took place, and some
machines, books, CDs and other items were removed after his office lock was
broken. Joshi filed a private complaint before a magistrate, seeking a probe.
In 2008, the
Andheri magistrate asked Juhu police for a report on the fresh theft case. The
police mentioned that the older 1990 case was bogus and the accused were
acquitted and suggested that the second case also appeared bogus. The court
thus rejected Joshi's plea to have the police register an FIR in the second
case. Joshi appealed against the order and filed an RTI application in January
2010 to know when and where had the court proceedings resulting in acquittal of
the accused taken place, as claimed by the police. He asked for a copy of his
FIR, chargesheet and court orders. He was not aware of any court hearing.
Juhu police
in response to the RTI plea said the FIR and documents were not traceable. But
in the first appeal, the zone 9 DCP ordered that the documents be given. Within
a week, the Juhu police sent Joshi copies of witness statements and said the
case is closed. Joshi went to the state information commission and its chief,
Ramanand Tiwari, heard the appeal. Tiwari passed no orders and eventually Joshi
sought answers from the government about the inordinate delay.
In August
2012 after hearing him, P W Patil, who was holding charge of the information
commission, directed that all FIR copies must be given free as required by law
or even sent by registered post to complainants. The police then gave Joshi a
copy of the FIR dated September 27, 1990 but it did not have his signature.
The
commission said it "partially accepted" the appeal and directed on
August 29 that the police be taken to task and must reply within 15 days. Over
a month with no reply, Joshi has now written to police chief Satyapal Singh,
seeking an explanation and action against the police officer for dereliction of
duty and misleading even the court in 2008 by filing a false affidavit.
.JPG)
.JPG)
