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 information on seven points pertaining to a case filed by Corporation Bank with C.B.I. [Case No.
Page 1 of 6
44/2010 of C.B.I. Special Court, Ahmedabad (M/s Sakar Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad)], including, inter-alia, (i) on which date did the C.B.I. Gandhinagar requested, for the first time permission to proceed against him in the above mentioned case, (ii) on which date did the Corporation Bank reply to the above letter and whether the reply was in affirmative or not, and (iii) if the reply was negative, on which date did the CBI, Gandhinagar subsequently requested permission to proceed against him in the said case.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that copies of all correspondence originated and responded between CBI, Gandhinagar and Corporation Bank 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 to enable him to represent his case before the court of law.
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.
Page 2 of 6
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 of IFB, Ahmedabad). However, the respondent had denied the information sought vide point no. 7 of the RTI application 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 a third party information. However, the CPIO did not clarify as to how the disclosure of information would impede the investigation. The appellant further submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act has been wrongly invoked by 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 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. The respondent clarified that vide point no. 7 of the RTI application the appellant had sought certified copies of all communications between the CBI and the bank regarding sanction of prosecution of the appellant. CBI has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, hence, the correspondence from the CBI to the bank is not disclosable under the RTI Act. Further, since the case no. 44/2010 is pending trial before a Court of Law, the disclosure of letters written to CBI by the bank would impede the process of prosecution of offenders and hence, is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, erroneously the appellant was informed that the information sought for was denied under Section 8(1)(h) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.
Page 3 of 6
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the case 44/2010 has been filed by the CBI before the CBI Special Court, Ahmedabad which is pending trial. The Commission, therefore, agrees with the respondent that disclosure of the information sought vide point no. 7 of the RTI application would impede the process of prosecution of the offenders. Hence, the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
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
Page 4 of 6
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 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. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 6
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 10.08.2018
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 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