The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC) has ordered the public authorities in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, to share details of action taken in a case where documents of evidence in a criminal case went missing.
P. Baskaran, the petitioner, had moved the TNSIC, stating that his evidence, recorded in a criminal case at the Judicial Magistrate court, had vanished, and sought to know the action taken on the staff concerned.
The court authorities issued a notice to the magisterial clerk seeking his explanation on December 15, 2015, and obtained his reply a couple of days later. However, a decision to accept the explanation was taken two years later and that too after the petitioner moved a petition under the RTI.
The TNSIC, in its detailed order, noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate-1, Ramanathapuram district, did not appear for the final hearing, and instead, deputed their representatives.
Public interest
Though the details sought by the petitioner on the proceedings of action taken by the court authorities on the missing documents could be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the TNSIC held that disclosing the information in this matter was in “larger public interest” considering the nature of allegations.
Taking into account the statement of the court authorities that the criminal case was completed based on fresh examination of witnesses and the point raised by the petitioner that his offer to submit again the documents that went missing was not accepted, the commission said it could not pass any orders on the issue.
However, the public authority was ordered to give copies of the report sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Madras High Court on the missing documents and the action taken on the same to the petitioner.
