Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: procured document in Mr. A. L. Motwani vs Iti Limited, Bangalore on 10 February, 2009Matching Fragments
iii) Correspondence (Official, Demi official) between ITI and CVC including the record of discussion.
iv) Agenda papers along with minutes of Board meetings of ITI, reference to various letters, etc. indicated in the agenda/minutes, copies of these referred letters etc. to be included
v) The documents referred to while framing the sanction order along with annexures eg. Instruction /manual on procurement of material followed in ITI and any other documents, copies of those references to be supplied.
5. Grounds for second appeal The Appellant preferred his second appeal before the CIC on 10.7.08. He stated that he is trying to defend himself in a case in which he is falsely implicated.
The Appellant submitted the following grounds for his appeal:
(i) The question of impeding investigation in the CBI case does not arise at all as the CBI has already completed its investigation and has also submitted a charge sheet to the Hon'ble CBI Court as far back as in the year 1998. He stated that the trial in the said case has already commenced and a few witnesses have also been examined in the case. The documents sought, if made available to him, will not impede or hamper the prosecution of offenders but, on the other hand, would help him to present a true and correct picture to the CBI Court. He questioned why, when under the law he is entitled to the documents, he should procure them from other sources.
15. During the hearing the Commission heard both the appellant and Mr. Narasimha Komar who represented the CBI. No one was present to represent the ITI, Bengaluru. Mr. Komar reiterated the stand that the information is being held in fiduciary capacity and the disclosure thereof will impede the process of prosecution. Moreover, Mr. Komar stated that the Appellant could have requested and procured these documents through the Hon'ble Court as per procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code. The Appellant stated that he had also tried to obtain the documents through the Court and invoked the other alternative option which was available to him through RTI, but the public prosecutor in pleading for the prosecution had himself submitted under affidavit that the accused may seek the information from the Department.