{"id":123849,"date":"2011-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-13T02:23:21","modified_gmt":"2017-07-12T20:53:21","slug":"mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011<\/div>\n
                               ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                                   Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                                 Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                        Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                  Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG\/12346Adjunct\n                                                                 Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant:                 :                   Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,\n                                               Sr. Correspondent, Live India,\n                                               Premnath Motors Complex,\n                                               1, Mandir Marg,\n                                               New Delhi- 110001.\n\nRespondent:           :                        Mr. Anil Palta\n                                               CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi\n                                               Central Bureau of Investigation\n                                               5th Floor, CBI HQ, Lodhi Road,\n                                               New Delhi\n\nRTI application       :          24\/09 \/2010 (two RTI applications were filed)\nPIO reply             :          18\/10\/2010\nFirst appeal          :          22\/10\/2010\nFAA order             :          19\/11\/2010\nSecond appeal          :         20\/12\/2010\n\nInformation sought:\nRTI application 1:\n<\/pre>\n
I am specifically looking for a copy each of the legal opinions expressed by the agency’s director’s of
\nprosecution concerning the bank fraud cases filed by the agency against Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal.
\nInformation sought: A copy each of the legal opinion (full report) given by the concerned director\/s of
\nprosecution (DOP) after the discharge of Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal from the two cases flied against him by
\nthe agency in connection with alleged bank fraud.\n<\/p>\n
RTI application 2:\n<\/p>\n
I am specifically looking for information on the two bank fraud cases filed by the agency wherein Mr.
\nSant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the agency: however, he was later exonerated by the concerned
\ncourts.\n<\/p>\n
1.      A copy each of the charge sheets wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
\n        agency in connection with the bank fraud case\/s.\n<\/p>\n
2.      A copy each of the judgments delivered by the concerned court\/s that exonerated Mr. Sant Singh
\n        Chatwal in both the cases filed by CBI.\n<\/p>\n
3.      A copy each of the recommendations made by the agency’s then Special Public Prosecutor\/s SSPs
\n        DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of the cases
\n        after Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.\n<\/p>\n
4.      A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director\/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after he
\n        was exonerated by the concerned courts.\n<\/p>\n
5.      A copy the final orders passed\/recommendations made by the former and present directors CBI in
\n        connection with either of the cases wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
\n        agency.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 PIO’s reply:\n<\/p>\n
For both RTI applications:\n<\/p>\n
2. With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that. apart from the two cases which
\nwere disposed off, two more cases, which are inter connected with the cases already disposed off, are
\npending under trial before the same court. Hence, the information cannot be supplied to you and
\nexemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is claimed.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for First appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Wrong denial of information.\n<\/p>\n
FAA order:\n<\/p>\n
The undersigned upholds the grounds on which CPIO, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi denied to provide the
\ninformation sought by the appellant as it falls u\/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act,2005 because two more cases which
\nare connected with the already disposed of ones are pending trial before the same court.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for Second appeal:\n<\/p>\n
The case is very old and admittedly there is no investigation underway. It is clear from the response of the
\nCPIO, BS&FC. CBI also, “With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that, apart
\nfrom the two cases which were disposed off, two more cases, which are interconnected with the cases
\nalready disposed off, are pending under trial before the same court. Hence the information can not be
\nsupplied to you and exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is claimed.” It reads ‘two more
\ncases.., are pending under trial before the same court.” It did not say that the investigation is under way.
\nA charge sheet by an investigative agency is a public document and same is true with orders of a court of
\nlaw. I believe, if CBI wanted to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act and not suppress the information
\nconcerning a high profile NRI hotelier, ideally it should have provided me the copies of charge sheets and
\ncourt orders regarding both the cases without any delay.\n<\/p>\n
In this context, it is my view, that the agency has deliberately and wrong invoked the section 8 (1) h of the
\nRTI Act as a pretext to deny me the information about a high profile non resident Indian.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 11 May 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,
\nRespondent: Mr. S. V. Raman, Superintendent of Police on behalf of Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & HOB of
\n               BS&FC Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
       “The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemptions under Section 8(1)(h) of the
\nRTI Act. A very peculiar claim was made that though the two cases for which information was being
\nsought have been discharged, there are two other fraud cases which are being pursued in which some of
\nthe Bank Officers are the same. No evidence has been given as to how giving the information would
\nimpede the prosecution of offenders. Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of, “information
\nwhich would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.” No claim
\nhas been made that any investigation is continuing, and the fact that some bank officers are being
\nprosecuted in two other matters cannot justify refusal to give information in the matters relating to Mr.
\nSant Singh Chatwal. The Respondent states that some of the documents relied in both the case are the
\nsame. The Appellant has not sought documents relating to the case directly. The respondent was asked if
\ndocuments sought at query-01 and 02 were not public documents. The Respondent agrees that what has
\nbeen sought in query-01 & 02 are public documents.\n<\/p>\n
Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and denial of information has to be based on
\ndefinite reasons which can be explained.\n<\/p>\n
Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114\/2007- “13. Access to
\ninformation, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be
\ninterpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
\ninformation is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders.
\nIt is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
\ninformation; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release
\nof such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the
\nopinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this
\nconsideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands
\nfor information.\n<\/p>\n
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal
\ninterpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in
\nSection 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on
\nthe exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in
\ntheir terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta<\/a> 2005 (2)
\nSCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy<\/a>
\n1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a
\njudicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.”\n<\/p>\n
Frivolously refusing information by claiming one of the 10 exemptions in Section 8(1) without giving
\nexplanation is an unwarranted denial of citizens’ fundamental right. No proper explanation has been given
\nfor denying the information.”\n<\/p>\n
Commission’s Decision dated 11 May 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     “The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
\n30 May 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of denying the information by the PIO without any justification
\nin the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information. It
\nappears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being
\nissued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
\nnot be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO Mr. Anil Palta will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 June 2011
\nat 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
\nas mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
\nappellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 June 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
       The respondent has given a written submission in which he admits that denying the charge sheet
\nand the copies of the judgment was an error of judgment and this information has now been provided to
\nthe Appellant. The Appellant acknowledges that he received these. As regards the following three:\n<\/p>\n
   (i) “A copy of each of the recommendations made by the agency’s then Special Public Prosecutor\/s,
\n          SSPs, DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of
\n          the cases after Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.\n<\/p>\n
   (ii)   A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director\/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after
\n          he was exonerated by the concerned court\/s.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
     (iii)      A cop of the final orders passed\/recommendations made by the former and present Directors of
\n               CBI in connection with either of the cases wherein Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused
\n               by the agency.”\n<\/p>\n
The respondent states that CBI intends challenging the decision of the Commission in a writ before the
\nHigh Court. The Commission sought the view of the respondent on whether a statutory authority’s order
\ncould be defied without the valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission would like
\nCBI to give its opinion on this matter before it takes a decision. It is felt that when public authorities or
\ncitizens do not implement orders given by the Statutory Authority without obtaining a stay as per the law
\nthis could create a very unhealthy situation. The respondent states that he would like to consult the
\nprosecution cell of CBI before answering the query of the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has given his submissions on 06\/06\/2011 in which he has stated that the CBI has not
\nfollowed the decision of the Commission. The appellant has pointed out the following:\n<\/p>\n
    1-     As per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act (which was mentioned in the order given by the
\n           Commission) the PIO should have provided the information free of cost since the information
\n           was being provided after the period of 30 days. Instead he was asked to despite Rs.286\/- to get
\n           part of the information which CBI was willing to give.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2-     The Appellant states that he believes that since there was no stay on the order of the
\n           Commission the CBI should have implemented.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3-     The Appellant believes that there must be some pressure on CBI because of which the
\n           Commission’s order was not implemented.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The respondent states that once the information is parted with CBI would not be able to retrieve it and
\nCBI believes that the decision of the Commission must be challenged in a writ since the information is
\ncovered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission is adjourning the matter until 29 June 2011. The PIO will then present his argument on
\nwhether the actions of CBI in not implementing the order is legally justifiable. The matter will be held on
\n29 June 2011 at 04.30PM.\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision:\n<\/p>\n
      The PIO will refund the amount of Rs.286\/- charged illegally, to the Appellant
\nbefore 15 June 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission also directs the PIO Mr. Anil Palta to present himself before the
\nCommission on 29 June 2011 at 04.30PM to present his argument before the
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                        Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                              Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                           09 June 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG\/12346Adjunct Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant: : Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi, Sr. Correspondent, Live India, Premnath Motors Complex, 1, Mandir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123849","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-12T20:53:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-12T20:53:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-12T20:53:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-12T20:53:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-12T20:53:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011"},"wordCount":1979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011","name":"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-12T20:53:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 9 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123849","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123849"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123849\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}