##PAGE1##

के ኚ᭾ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई नि्ቤी, New Delhi – 110067

नितीय अपील सं्ቅा/Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2025/601969

V Sriram ……अपीलकताग/Appellant

VERSUS बनाम

CPIO: State Bank of .…्ቚनतवािीगण/Respondents India

Date of Hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of Decision : 24.03.2026

Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena

Relevant Facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application : 28.11.2024 PIO replied on : 09.12.2024 First Appeal filed on : 10.12.2024 First Appeal Order on : 31.12.2024 2^nd Appeal received on : 10.01.2025

CIC/SBIND/A/2025/601969 Page 1 of 5

1 / 6

Information sought and background of the case

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:

“I am a victim in a cyber fraud that happened in the month of May 2024, I was compelled to transfer Rs. 76,05,000/- to account name and styled as Pawan House Brokers, Account No. 42974757889, with State Bank Of India, ADB Bahraich Branch, Uttar Pradesh, which I Later realised that it was a fraud and immediately lodged a Police Complaint with the Cyber Crime Department, Office of The Commissioner Of Police Chennai. The Police Department immediately freezed the amount of Rs. 1.22 Crores available in the

account.

I then approached the Xith Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Saidapet Chennai pleading to issue orders for recovery of 76.05 Lakhs from the beneficiaries account from and out of the freezed amount of Rs. 1.22 Crores. The orders were issued on 20th September 2024 advising the investigating officer to recover the amount from the

beneficiary account with SBI.

SBI has replied that the freezed amount has been returned to the other victims...

Under RTI Act I would like to obtain information from State Bank of India, The procedure followed in returning the freezed amount and whether it was returned based on an order from a Competent Court.”

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“With reference to the RTI dated 28.11.2024, we submit information sought by customer under RT1-2005 as below:-

CIC/SBIND/A/2025/601969 Page 2 of 5

2 / 6

As per bank's guidelines, the Bank has to comply the release orders chronologically on the basis of dates of order and the dates on which

the order has been communicated.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2024 on the following grounds:

“The bank’s initial reply only stated general guidelines ("comply the release orders chronologically") rather than answering the specific question raised. The appellant is now asking for confirmation on whether those specific guidelines were actually followed in this instance. He is reiterating a previously unanswered query asking if

the fund release was based on a court order”

The FAA vide order dated 31.12.2024 stated as under:-

“After going through RTI appeal dated-10.12.2024, RTI application dated-28.11.2024 and CPIO reply vide letter no.-RBO-VI/2024- 25/R11/565 dated-09.12.2024, the First Appellant Authority finds that the CPIO has given reply only for the 1 point of the RTI application dated-28.11.2024, however the information sought by the appellant regarding release of the fund was whether based on the order of competent court, has not been replied by the CPIO therefore the FAA directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI application and provide the reply for 2 ^ n4 point as per record and keeping in view the provisions of

the RTI Act 2005 within 7 days of the receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

CIC/SBIND/A/2025/601969 Page 3 of 5

3 / 6

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing

The appellant was present through video conference.

The respondent Mr. Digvijay Singh, Regional Manager was present through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that the informat