KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has claimed that the information he had sought was originally tried to be obstructed by mentioning that the same had been supplied to the petitioner and this was sought to be proved by alleging that the petitioner had signed a receipt therefor. Subsequently one year later the information was actually supplied. The precise grouse raised by the petitioner is that despite having made the allegation that his signatures were forged, no action was taken by the State Information Commission. As per learned counsel it was incumbent upon the Commission to have instituted an inquiry and, if the allegation of forgery was proved, to have taken action under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. In the first place Section 195 Cr. P.C. would come into operation only in respect of an offence 'which appears to have been committed.' In my considered opinion even this Section would apply if the Court has itself come to the conclusion that an offence appears to have been committed and would not automatically come into operation only on the allegation of one party that there is a forgery. Second and more important, sub section 195(3) Cr. P.C. defines the term 'Court' and from a perusal thereof, in my considered opinion, the State Information Commission cannot be classified as a 'Court'. Learned counsel has fallen back on Section 195(1) Cr. P.C. which deals with public servants and states that in any case the Information Commissioners are public servants. Even if this is so, Section 195(1) also would come into operation where the public servant concerned himself makes a complaint. A perusal of these Sections does not lead to the conclusion that every time such a complaint is made before a public servant or Court, it is incumbent upon such public servant or such Court to institute an inquiry into the veracity of the allegation. In the present case it is undisputed that the necessary information was given to the petitioner though, as claimed by the petitioner, it was provided late. It would be too much to insist that the Commission should abandon all its other work and launch an inquiry into the allegation made by the petitioner.

(2.) IN these circumstances it is not to say that in an appropriate case such a course cannot be adopted but on a consideration of the entire matter I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.