Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
P.K. Choudhury vs Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref) on 13 March, 2008
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had
sought to know as to whether or not the CVC monitored the cases of Army Officers
in which the advice of the CVC is sought by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for
grant of prosecution sanction of such officers charged under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and that he was not satisfied with the information provided by
the CPIO that CVC had no jurisdiction over the Army Officers who were appointed
under the Army Act, 1950. The appellant cited section 25 of the PC Act, 1988, Para
10 of CVC Manual and Supreme Court's judgment dated 13.03.2008 in the case of
P.K. Choudhury vs. Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref) in support of his submissions
wherein, the advice of CVC would be sought by the Ministry/Department concerned
for sanctioning the prosecution of a public servant appointed by the Central Govt.
and since Indian Army is a part of Ministry of Defence, the CVC could not deny its
jurisdiction over Army Officers' cases. The appellant, therefore, alleged that he had
been wrongly refused information by the respondent authority.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 25 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 197 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
5. On hearing both the parties and after perusing the available records, the
Commission observes that the CPIO has provided the available information, as per
the records, to the appellant. A public authority is not supposed to furnish
clarification/explanations to the applicant but to provide only the existing and
available information which is held by it or under its control and required to be
maintained under any law or rule for the time being in force. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
1