O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Corporation Bank, Head Office, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, Karnataka seeking certified photo copy of all communications/papers/records/documents received from the Central Vigilance Commission and all communications/ papers/ records/ documents exchanged between Corporation Bank and the Central Vigilance Commission in
Page 1 of 6
respect of the case filed by Corporation Bank with CBI in Case No. 44/2010 of CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad (M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd of IFB, Ahmedabad).
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that information/document has been denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) &
(j) of the RTI Act stating that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders and also that it is third party information. The appellant stated that the CPIO has not mentioned in what manner disclosure of information would impede the investigation and that merely citing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not sufficient. The appellant also stated that no reason was given by the CPIO as to how Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is applicable in this case when he is one of the parties to the case. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought by him without any further loss of time.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri N. Subramanian and the respondent Shri Valerian Casthelino, AGM, Corporation Bank, Head Office, Pandeshwar, Mangalore, Karnataka attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought information pertaining to a case filed by Corporation Bank namely Case No. 44/2010 of CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad (M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad). However, the respondent had denied the information sought under Section 8(1)(h) and (j) of the RTI Act stating that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders and also that it is third party information. The appellant further submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been wrongly invoked by
Page 2 of 6
the respondent as he is an accused in the case and hence it cannot be said that the information sought pertain to a third party.
5. The respondent submitted that the bank had filed a complaint dated 17.03.2008 regarding the fraud committed by M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and others with CBI Gandhinagar. The respondent affirmed that the complaint was not against Shri N. Subramanian. In view of this, the appellant was informed that the information sought pertains to a third party (M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad) and hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that the case no. 44/2010 has been filed by the CBI against Shri Arvind A. Trivedi and others including Shri N. Subramanian which is pending trial before the CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad. Hence, the appellant was informed that the disclosure of the information sought would impede the process of prosecution and hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the appellant was informed that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) and(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the respondent had filed a complaint with the CBI against M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad and not Shri N. Subramanian. Hence, the information sought pertains to a third party namely M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad. Further, no public interest would be served by its disclosure. Hence, the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission also notes that the case 44/2010 has been filed by the CBI before the CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad. The Commission further observes that the CBI has been declared an exempt organization under Section
Page 3 of 6
24(1) read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the CBI.
7. The Commission also notes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case S. M. Lamba vs. S. C. Gupta and Anr. [W.P. (C) 6226/2007] dated 04.05.2010 has observed that :
"5. This court would like to observe that under the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 once the stage of an order framing charges have been crossed, it would be open to the accused to make an appropriate application before the learned trial court to summon the above documents in accordance with the law."
8. Further, the Division Bench of the CIC in Ms. Anita J. Gursahani vs. Cotton Corporation of India (Decision No.5561/ IC (A)/2010) decided on 24.06.2010 has elaborated further on this point in paragraphs 17 and 18 as follows:
"the information, which is being sought, can be had from the competent court trying the case. Any discretion exercised under RTI Act would amount to impeding the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The appellate authority and the CPIO, CBI has correctly taken the stand that the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)
(h) of RTI Act, 2005. An accused in an ongoing prosecution is free to demand access to any information he considers necessary and appropriate for his defense and the trial court after considering the matter- in which the prosecution side is also given a chance to present his argument - makes a decision about whether or not to abide by any request of the accused. It has been so succinctly held in the ruling of Bombay High Court in Jagdish V Gursahani case quoted by us above; this is a matter that is entirely within the jurisdiction and discretion of the trial court. To allow an accused access
Page 4 of 6
to set of information known to be related to an ongoing prosecution proceeding is through action under RTI act, would amount to prejudging the matter for the trial court and hence would impede the prosecution in progress. In that sense, it would attract Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Appellants were entirely free to approach the Trial Court for access to the very same information they now wish to be provided to them through the RTI Act. …… He can seek the same information through the Trial Court in full measure and should he succeed in persuading the Court he would have received the records and documents that he is now seeking to access through RTI Act."
9. In view of the above, the Commission observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुुधुु ीर भाग व
)
Information Commissioner (सूूचूू ना आयुुुु ) दनांक / Date 07.08.2018
Authenticated true copy
(अिभमािणत स यािपत ित)
S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला(
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26105682 / do.icsb-cic@gov.in
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Corporation Bank, Head Office,
Mangaladevi Temple Road,
Pandeshwar,
Mangalore, Karnataka-575001.
2. Shri N. Subramanian,
Page 6 of 6