JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. Both these writ petitions are amenable for being decided through a common verdict on account of theirs encapsulating similar facts, besides theirs being engendered by a common legal issue.

2. The instant writ petitions assail separate orders dated 08.02.2016 passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab, whereby a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been fastened upon petitioner No.2 under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the RTI Act”), and compensation to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- has also been awarded in favour of respondent No.2/applicant under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, payable from the funds of the public authority.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The concise and compendious factual matrix germane to the disposal of the instant writ petitions is that respondent No.2, who was an accused in a criminal case, submitted an application dated 05.12.2012 under the RTI Act seeking copies of the daily diaries maintained by the Station House Officers posted at Police Station Jagraon during the period 2004-2005. However, the S.H.O., Police Station City Jagraon-cum-Public Information Officer, vide letter dated 04.01.2013, declined to furnish the said information by invoking the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Thereafter, respondent No.2 submitted another application dated 20.02.2013 under the RTI Act seeking the following information:-

“Attested copy of Case Diary (Zimni), Daily Dairy (ROZNAMCHA) Related FIR No. 240 dated 21.07.04 & 242/05 Dated 22.07.2005 and Personal Dairy of the then SHO City Jagraon according order of Chief Information Commissioner in case CC No. 3209 of 2009 (copy enclosed) with also latest order dated 31.01.2013 in case AC No.20 of 2013 (Copy enclosed)”

4. In response to this application, the S.H.O.-cum-Public Information Officer, vide letter dated 12.03.2013, supplied attested copies of the DDR pertaining to FIR No.240 dated 31.07.2004. However, the information relating to the case diary (zimni) and the daily diary (roznamcha) was again declined by invoking the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The non-supply of the desired information triggered respondent No.2 to file an appeal before the State Information Commission, which was registered as AC No.521 of 2013. Subsequently, respondent No.2 filed another similar application dated 31.05.2013 under the RTI Act, which is stated to have been received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural) on 08.06.2013, whereby he sought inspection of the police file relating to FIR No.240/04 and FIR No.242/05 registered at Police Station City Jagraon, wherein he was an accused.

5. It is pertinent to record that, when the application(s) seeking inspection of the police file and supply of the requisite documents was submitted, the trials arising out of both the FIRs (supra) were in progress. 6. Upon receipt of the application, the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural), on the same day, i.e. 08.06.2013, forwarded the same to the concerned S.H.O., who was the custodian of the apposite record. The S.H.O., vide letter dated 28.06.2013, reported that the FIRs were pending adjudication and sought clarification as to the specific portion of the police files that respondent No.2 intended to inspect. Upon receiving clarification from respondent No.2 on 10.07.2013 that he wanted to inspect the complete file, the S.H.O., vide letter dated 22.07.2013, informed the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police that the information sought was exempt from disclosure in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act and Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C., and hence the complete police file could not be made available to the accused or his agent for inspection, particularly when the trial was in progress. The said report was thereafter forwarded to respondent No.2 on 30.07.2013. Deriving grievance from non supply of desired information and refusal to inspect the police f