{"id":164091,"date":"2011-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-26T05:32:54","modified_gmt":"2017-05-26T00:02:54","slug":"mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                      CENTRAL 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\/000294\/SG\/12297\n                                                          Appeal No.\u00a0CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000294\/SG\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Appellant                           : Mr. A.N. Gupta,\n                                      C-127, Sector-19, NOIDA\n                                      Distt. Gautambudh Nagar (LIP.)\n\nRespondent                          : Mr. Pradip Kumar,\n                                      Superintendent of Police &amp; CPIO\n                                      Central Bureau of Investigation (HQ)\n                                      Anti Corruption Cell-- II, 8th Floor,\n                                      Lodhi Road, CGO Complex,\n                                      NEW DELHI\n\nRTI application filed on            :      23\/08\/2010\nPIO replied                         :      29\/09\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on               :      04\/10\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :      19\/10\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on           :      23\/11\/2010\n\nInformation sought by the appellant:\n<\/pre>\n<p>i) Copies of the Complete Final Investigation Reports of the Investigating Officers and Law Officers<br \/>\nin case of investment of:\n<\/p>\n<p>a. Rs.500 crore, Rs.200 crore and Rs.250 crore (aggregating Rs.950 crore in Bonds of West Bengal<br \/>\nInfrastructure Development Finance<br \/>\nCorporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<p>b. Rs.200 crore in Himachal Pradesh Infrastructure Development Board and<br \/>\nc. Rs,150 crore in Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>ii) Photocopies of all the Notesheets on which Investigation Reports in respect of West Bengal<br \/>\nInfrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Himachal Pradesh Infrastructure Development<br \/>\nBoard and Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation were processed and finally<br \/>\napproved\/rejected by the Competent Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Information provided by PIO:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In this regard it is intimated that PE-1 (A)\/2007\/ACU-VI (relating to investment by HUDCO in West<br \/>\nBengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (WBIDFC)<br \/>\nBonds), PE-2(A)\/2007\/ACU-VI (relating to investment by HUDGO in Vidarbha Irrigation<br \/>\nDevelopment Corporation (VIDC) and PE-3(A)\/2007\/ACU-Vl (relating to investment by HUDCO in<br \/>\nHimachal Pradesh Infrastructure Development Board (HPIDB) Bonds were registered by CBI, ACU-<br \/>\nVI Branch. But the said PEs were closed after conclusion of the enquiry as per the orders of<br \/>\nCompetent Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Copies of enquiry report in PE-1(A)\/2007\/ACU-Vl and PE-3(A)\/2007 containing<br \/>\npages 8 and 3 can be provided on deposit of the prescribed photocopying charge @ Rs. 2 per page.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Copies of the enquiry report\/SP&#8217;s Report in PE 2 (A)\/2007-ACU-VI cannot be provided as the SP&#8217;s<br \/>\nReport is a privileged and confidential document, which cannot be disclosed either fully or in part.<br \/>\nMoreover, SP&#8217;s Report is submitted by the CBI to the department in fiduciary capacity, therefore<br \/>\nexemption is claimed under sec 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, Further, disclosure of the report even before a<br \/>\nfinal decision by the competent authority would be inconsequential and the disciplinary\/appointing<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                         Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n authority to chooses to disagree in such case besides being against the norms of equity would cause<br \/>\nirretrievable injury to the officer\/persons (who would have been the subject of investigation) standing<br \/>\nand reputation. Disclosure of an investigation\/enquiry report even before its acceptance\/rejection by a<br \/>\ngiven competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressure which may hamper and<br \/>\ncompromise objectivity of decision making. Thus, the SPs Report is a privileged and confidential<br \/>\ndocument being exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act which cannot be disclosed either fully or<br \/>\nin part. Reliance is also placed on the decision of CIC in Appeal No.CIC\/AT\/2008\/01238 dated<br \/>\n19.09.2008 (Date of decision 07.06.2010).\n<\/p>\n<p>4. As far as providing photocopies of Note sheet, it is to intimate that this is a document which<br \/>\ncontains comments of all officers of CBI and carries out the day to day investigation and the gist of the<br \/>\ninvestigation recorded in the case diaries in order to prepare the decision of prosecution\/departmental<br \/>\naction. Since the involvement of<br \/>\nnumber of officers is discussed based on the day to day investigation recorded in the case diaries<br \/>\ntherefore this document is held in confidence by the CBI. Thus exemption is sought u\/s 8 (1) (g) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act, 2005. Reliance is also placed on the decision of CIC passed in Appeal<br \/>\nNo.CIC\/WB\/2009\/000503 dated 22.04.2009. (Date of Decision 27.07.2010).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds of the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Information not provided.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n<p>Information had been provided on 29\/09\/2010, however information was again sent.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ground for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>a) The CPIO arbitrarily declined the disclosure of requested information.\n<\/p>\n<p>b) The petition before the appellate authority has not been adjudicated upon.<br \/>\nThe CPIO, CBI vide letter No.163\/87\/RTI\/CBI\/AC-II\/2010 dated 2nd September, 2010 (Annexure-V)<br \/>\nhad agreed to provide the Enquiry Reports in case of PE-1\/2007\/ACU-V1 and PE-3(A)\/2007, i.e.<br \/>\nInvestment by HUDCO in WBIDFC&#8217; and HPIDB respectively. However, vide his letter No.<br \/>\n5777\/87\/RTI\/C8I\/AC-II\/20 10 dated 26th October, 2010 (Annexure-VI), the CPIO, instead of<br \/>\nproviding the Enquiry Reports as sought for by the undersigned at i (a) (b) &amp; (c) above, has simply<br \/>\nprovided Self contained Notes, in respect of PE-1. and PE-3 only AND NOT THE Enquiry Reports, as<br \/>\nmentioned by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Mr. A.N. Gupta;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Pradip Kumar, Superintendent of Police &amp; CPIO;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has provided written submissions in which it is claimed that the disclosure of<br \/>\ninformation sought by the Appellant would endanger the life or physical safety of certain persons and<br \/>\nhence was exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO had, in his original denial of<br \/>\ninformation, claimed the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO had<br \/>\nstated that the SP&#8217;s report was a privileged and confidential document and hence exempted from<br \/>\ndisclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Respondent stated that information about the<br \/>\ninvestigation of CBI should not be revealed to people until a final decision was taken by the competent<br \/>\nauthority. The Respondent stated that all the inquiries were made in 2007 and inadequate evidence had<br \/>\nbeen found to proceed with the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant stated that he was seeking information about investment in various institutions totaling<br \/>\nto Rs. 1300 crores. The CVC has, in its report of 27\/03\/2006, concluded &#8220;in the four cases mentioned<br \/>\nabove there is adequate evidence to show that Commission&#8217;s (by whatever name called) were made by<br \/>\nborrowing agencies to various private firms for mobilizing funds from HUDCO&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.Thus in all<br \/>\nthese cases undue favours were caused to the private firms. It is also strongly suspected that part of<br \/>\nthese commissions may have been passed on to the officials of HUDCO.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                             Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> The Appellant further stated that in all these cases the CBI had filed the closure report and sent it to the<br \/>\ndepartments, which have in turn filed the closure report before the Supreme Court, asking for closure<br \/>\nof the case. The Appellant states that Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has filed an<br \/>\naffidavit in the Supreme Court stating that based on the CBI closure reports, all cases have been<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO has denied the information claiming exemption under Section-8(1)(e) &amp; (g) of the RTI Act.<br \/>\nThe Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and the denial of information can only be<br \/>\nbased on the exemptions under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act. When an exemption is claimed under<br \/>\nSection-8(1), it is necessary that a public authority should be able to clearly justify its claim showing<br \/>\nharm to a protected interest. The SP&#8217;s report has been claimed to be protected by Section 8(1)(e) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts, &#8220;information available to a person in his fiduciary<br \/>\nrelationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the<br \/>\ndisclosure of such information;&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to<br \/>\nsomeone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter&#8217;s benefit within the scope of that<br \/>\nrelationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those<br \/>\nthat attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another<br \/>\nimportant characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of<br \/>\ninformation who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer<br \/>\nchooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for<br \/>\nthe relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the<br \/>\ninformation for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships<br \/>\nusually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided<br \/>\nin discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to<br \/>\nhave been given in a fiduciary relationship. In the instant case the SP&#8217;s report is provided to the<br \/>\ndepartment in discharge of official duties and this certainly cannot qualify for information provided in<br \/>\nthe fiduciary capacity.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO has also claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(g) which exempts, &#8220;information, the<br \/>\ndisclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of<br \/>\ninformation or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;&#8221;. The nature<br \/>\nof investigations is about alleged bribery and no specific argument has been claimed as to who may<br \/>\nface physical harm or threat to their lives on disclosure of such information. Mere fears without any<br \/>\njustification cannot be a ground for denying the citizens&#8217; fundamental right. Further, the PIO did not<br \/>\nraise any argument to the effect that disclosure of the information sought identify the source of<br \/>\ninformation or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, as provided<br \/>\nunder Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Commission asked the Respondent whether he<br \/>\nwould like to severe the names of any individual before furnishing the information sought. However,<br \/>\nthe Respondent did not think it would serve any purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section -19(5) of the RTI Act clearly places the onus to prove the denial of request is justified on the<br \/>\nPIO and the Commission does not feel any clear justification has been given. The Commission does<br \/>\nnot uphold the contention of the PIO that the information sought is exempted under Section-8(1)(e)<br \/>\nand (g) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The preamble of the RTI Act states that &#8220;&#8230;AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed<br \/>\ncitizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain<br \/>\ncorruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;&#8221; From<br \/>\nthe situation described by the Appellant, it appears that CVC found clear evidence showing bribes<br \/>\nhaving been taken. However, now the CBI and the Ministry have come to the conclusion that there<br \/>\nwas no wrong doing. If corruption is to be curtailed and the Government and its instrumentalities are<br \/>\nto be held accountable to the governed, citizens need to get information of this nature. This will ensure<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n that they will act as monitor and check on the government. In the absence of citizens being allowed to<br \/>\nmonitor their government and its large financial transactions, it is unlikely that the objective of<br \/>\ncontaining corruption would be achieved by the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission has come to the conclusion that none of the exemptions would apply to the<br \/>\ninformation sought by the Appellant. Before parting with this matter the Commission is also<br \/>\nconvinced that even if any of the exemptions under Section 8(1) applied, this is a fit case where large<br \/>\npublic interest would outweigh the harm to any protected interest. Therefore, such information, as<br \/>\nsought by the Appellant, would have to be disclosed in furtherance to Section 8(2) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as available on records<br \/>\nto the Appellant before 30 May 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                    Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                          Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                       06 May 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (sg)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000294\/SG\/12297 Appeal No.\u00a0CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000294\/SG Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. A.N. Gupta, C-127, Sector-19, NOIDA Distt. Gautambudh Nagar (LIP.) Respondent : [&hellip;]<\/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-164091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-26T00:02:54+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-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-26T00:02:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1892,\"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-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-26T00:02:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-26T00:02:54+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-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-26T00:02:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011"},"wordCount":1892,"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-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011","name":"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-26T00:02:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-n-gupta-vs-cbi-on-6-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. A N Gupta vs Cbi on 6 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/164091","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=164091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}