The Case of the Missing Charge Sheet: Transparency vs. Administrative Silence

In a functional democracy, the movement of legal documents between the Police and the Judiciary should be seamless and transparent. However, the case of Shivam Gupta vs. CPIO, District Court Mirzapur reveals a troubling “administrative vacuum.” A critical criminal record, in this instance a Missing Charge Sheet, has effectively vanished between two public authorities.

1. The Core Dispute: A Conflict of Records (Missing Charge Sheet)

The central issue stems from a direct contradiction between two government departments regarding Charge Sheet No. 88/2025 (P.S. Kotwali Katra)¹:

• The Police Claim: The Circle Officer (City), Mirzapur, provided a written confirmation. It stated that the document was sent to the Court on May 17, 2025222.
• The Court’s Denial: Clerks at the District Court Mirzapur have verbally denied receiving the file³.

When the Appellant sought to resolve this via an RTI, the request was met with rejection. This left a criminal document untraceable4444.

2. The Legal Mirage: “Judicial” vs. “Administrative”

The CPIO rejected the RTI by invoking Rule 26, claiming the matter is “pending adjudication” and therefore a judicial record5555. This is the core legal fallacy of the case:

• Administrative Fact: The physical receipt of a file in a Dak (Mail) Register is an administrative entry⁶.
• Judicial Status: A document only enters “judicial proceedings” once a Magistrate takes Cognizance⁷. If the court denies even receiving the file, it cannot logically be “pending adjudication”8.

3. Procedural Hurdles and Misleading Directions

The path to information was further obstructed by significant procedural lapses: (Missing Charge Sheet)

• Deemed Refusal: The CPIO did not respond to the initial application within the mandatory 30-day limit. This is a violation of Section 7(1)⁹.
• The “3-Day” Trap: Communications were exchanged. The CPIO then provided a legally invalid 3-day window for the Appellant to file a representation^10101010. Under the RTI Act, citizens are entitled to 30 days for a first appeal¹¹.
• Good Faith Compliance: Despite the irregularity of the 3-day demand, the Appellant complied. They submitted a representation to the District Judge. However, it then went ignored^12121212.

4. The “Rule 141” Deadlock (Missing Charge Sheet)

The CPIO directed the Appellant to seek information under Rule 141 of the General Rules (Criminal)^13131313. This created a “Catch-22” situation:

• Rule 141 requires a Case Number to conduct a search^14141414.
• Because the Court denies receiving the Charge Sheet, no Case Number exists15.
• By blocking the RTI, the CPIO effectively made the document impossible to find through any legal channel¹⁶.

5. Conclusion: The Path to Accountability

The State Information Commission (Case No. S01/A/1731/2025) must now decide if administrative technicalities can be used to shield the loss of public records17171717. The Appellant’s prayer is simple. A physical search of the Receipt Register is needed. There should be accountability for the misleading procedural directions provided by the CPIO. (Missing Charge Sheet)

This is the most critical point to emphasize during your hearing at 10:30 AM. You have identified a “Jurisdictional Error” made by the CPIO.

The CPIO assumed the matter was “pending adjudication” without actually checking the Dak/Receipt Register. This resulted in a failure in his statutory duty under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act¹.

---

The Missing Link: Administrative Receipt vs. Judicial Adjudication (Missing Charge Sheet)

1. The CPIO’s Failure to Conduct a “Search”

• Assumption over Fact: The CPIO assumed that because a “Charge Sheet” is a legal document. They concluded it must already be a “judicial record”²²²².
• Failure of Perusal: The CPIO failed to examine the Administrative Registers (Dak/Receipt Register). This was necessary to determine if the document ever entered the building³³³³.
• Obligatory Duty: Under Section 5(4), the CPIO had to seek help from the Munsarim or the Filing Section. This assistance was necessary to verify the physical existence of the file before rejecting the application⁴⁴.

2. Why the “Pending Adjudication” Argument Fails (Missing Charge Sheet)

• Pre-Cognizance Stage: A matter becomes “pending adjudication” only after a Magistrate receives the file. The Magistrate must apply their mind to it and take cognizance⁵.
• The Transit Gap: Between the Police dispatch (17.05.2025) and the Court’s formal registration, the document is in an Administrative Stage⁶⁶⁶⁶.
• Traceability: You are asking for the status of receipt. It is an administrative fact recorded in the court’s clerical registers. It is not in the judicial “Paper Book”⁷⁷⁷⁷.

3. The Trap of Rule 141 (Missing Charge Sheet)

• Registration Required: The CPIO directed you to Rule 141. However, that rule only applies to records already in the Record Room. It also applies to records with a Case Number⁸⁸⁸⁸.
• Circular Logic: The CPIO is telling you to use a rule that requires a Case Number. At the same time, they are denying you the RTI that would tell you why there is no Case Number⁹⁹⁹⁹.

---

💡 Pro-Tip for the Commissioner (S-1 Court)

When you speak, say this exactly:

“Sir, the CPIO rejected my request based on an assumption. He did not check the court records (Dak Register). Had he checked, he would have seen the Police dispatched it on May 17. By not checking, he has allowed a criminal charge sheet to remain ‘missing’ in his office. This is a failure of his duty under Section 5(4).” ^10101010

🛠️ Your Final Checklist

1. Police Report: Keep the report from the Circle Officer (31.05.2025) ready as proof of dispatch^11111111.
2. CPIO Order: Keep the rejection letter (16.12.2025) to show the Commissioner his incorrect reasoning^12121212.
3. Section 20(1): Specifically ask the Commissioner to record that the CPIO gave a misleading response by not perusing the registers^13131313.

Here is the consolidated information for your case. It is recorded in your documentation and the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) portal.

📌 Primary Case Identifiers

• UPIC Diary Number: D-231220250002
• Registration Number: A-20251100869
• Case File Number: S01/A/1731/2025
• Online Application ID: UPICR20250003993
• Original RTI Registration No: DNMZP/R/2025/60017

---

📧 Contact Details (Appellant & Respondents) (Missing Charge Sheet)

Entity	Name/Title	Contact Details
Appellant	Shivam Gupta	Mobile: 8756521496 Email: shivamgupta9307215205@gmail.com
Respondent 1 (CPIO)	Santosh Kumar Gautam (ADJ Court No. 01)	Phone: 054422523 Email: dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in
Respondent 2 (FAA)	District Judge, Mirzapur	Email: dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in
UPIC Court (S-1)	Raj Kumar Vishwakarma	Email: hearingcourts1.upic@up.gov.in

---

🌐 Important Web Links

• Case Status Portal: UPIC Case Tracking (Use Registration No. A-20251100869 to view latest orders).
• Digital Submission Portal: UP SIC Departmental Portal (For uploading written statements and rebuttals).
• District Court Mirzapur: Official Website (To check if the Charge Sheet has been registered as a case).

---

🏛️ Hearing Schedule (Today)

• Date: 23/12/2025
• Time: 10:30 AM
• Hearing Room: S-1
• Status: KOF (Knowledge of Fact) submitted by citizen and forwarded to the concern hearing officer.