Telangana High Court
Gatram Venkateshwara Rao vs The State Public Information Officer, on 29 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
WRIT APPEAL NO.808 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. Basant Kumar Soni, learned counsel
representing Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for
appellant on record and Mr. S.Pradeep Kumar, learned
Government Pleader for Information Technology appearing
for respondent.
2. The application filed under Section 3 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, (for short, 'RTI Act, 2005') for
furnishing copies of CDRs of Mobile No.9246522324 in
connection with Crime No.02/RCT/2019 and the copies of
entries from the General Diary of the Office of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy Range, dated
18.01.2019, 19.01.2019 and 22.01.2019 concerning the
prosecution of the appellant/accused, has been denied by
the Public Information Officer on the following grounds at
the second appellate stage.
"Appellant seeking information pertaining to
the CDRs pertains to the mobile number
9246522324 (21 pages) for the period from
05.01.2019 in Cr.No.02/RCT/2019. In this regard
it is submit that, in the case Cr.No.02/RCT-
HRG/2019 the appellant was himself an accused
officer and he seeking information pertains to
CDRs of the complainant. In this case charge
sheet already filed and at present the case is
under pending trial. The contents of the CDRs
details of the complainant cannot be given to the
accused officer at this stage, as the case
mentioned in Cr.No.02/RCT-HRG/2019 is
pending trial in the Court. Any furnishing of
information at this stage may vitiate the
prosecution, likely to threaten the witnesses and
impede the trial process in Court. Section 8(1)(h)
of the RTI Act, 2005 reads 'information which
would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders'. Hence,
the details are exempted
U/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
The details of the General Diary particulars
O/o the Dy. Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ranga
Reddy Range on 18.01.2019, 19.01.2019 and
22.01.2019 cannot be furnished as the Dy.
Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ranga Reddy
Range, Anti-Corruption Bureau has not
maintained any General Diary.
Therefore, in the circumstances I agree with
the stand taken by the PIO, ACB, TS, Hyderabad.
Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed."
3. Vide order dated 09.04.2025, learned writ Court
refused to interfere in the matter as the said information is
exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the said
information is being sought to defend the appellant/
accused at the stage of discharge. There exists a duty to
disclose such information, which may implicate the
appellant or provide his defence.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for appellant and
the learned Government Pleader, we are unable to accept
the contention of the appellant that information, such as
this, can be provided under the Act, 2005 in view of the
exemption granted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act,
2005. Even otherwise, material collected during the
investigation to be used against the accused/appellant
form part of the police papers, is to be furnished to the
appellant under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Information, such
as this, however, cannot be claimed under the RTI Act,
2005 in view of the exemption clause. Petitioner may make
such an application at the appropriate stage before the
learned trial Court. In those circumstances, we are not
inclined to grant any relief in the matter.
6. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 29.07.2025
kkm
