Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mr. Brijesh Kumar vs Cbi on 10 January, 2011

                     Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                          File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000126­SM
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                      :                                7 January 2011


Date of decision                     :                               10 January 2011



Name of the Appellant                :   Shri Brijesh Kumar
                                         F­14, MEA Housing Complex,
                                         Sector - 2, Dwarka,
                                         New Delhi - 75.


Name of the Public Authority         :   CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation,
                                         Economic offences Unit - I,
                                         Anti Corruption Branch, Block No.3,
                                         7th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, 
                                         New Delhi.



        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
        (i)     Shri Rajeev Sharma, DIG,
        (ii)    Shri Keshav Mishra, SP



Chief Information Commissioner               :        Shri Satyananda Mishra



2. Both   the   parties   were   present   and   made   their   submissions.   The  Appellant had requested for the copy of the closure report in the Bofors pay off  case  and the  copies of the  documents  the CBI  had  obtained from  Sweden  relating to this matter. The CPIO had informed him that no closure report had  CIC/WB/A/2010/000126­SM been filed and that since the documents obtained from Sweden were part of the  criminal case pending for trial in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate  could not be disclosed at this stage as it might adversely affect the prosecution  of the offenders. In addition, during the hearing, the Respondent submitted that  while obtaining these records from Sweden, the Government of India had, in an  affidavit, given an undertaking that these documents and records would not be  used directly or indirectly in any matter other than the prosecution for which  these  had  been  obtained.  Therefore,  it   was  submitted  that  disclosing  these  records under the Right to Information (RTI) Act would be an infringement of  that   undertaking   and   would   adversely   affect   the   friendly   relationship   with  Sweden. While we appreciate this line of argument, we would like the CPIO to  inform the Appellant about this in a speaking order.

3. Therefore,   we   direct   him   to   communicate   to   the   Appellant   within   10  working days from the receipt of this order this fact in a reasoned order and to  explain   why   these   documents   could   not   be   disclosed.   He   must   cite   the  appropriate   provision   under   which   the   disclosure   of   such   documents   is  exempted and should enclose a copy of the affidavit the GOI had filed in this  regard.

4. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner CIC/WB/A/2010/000126­SM Authenticated true copy.  Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against  application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this  Commission.

(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/WB/A/2010/000126­SM