Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the petition submitted by the head of former Intel State of Rashmi Shukla to cancel Fir.
Registered by Mumbai Cyber cells against unknown people of “leakage” from alleged corruption in the police transfer.
It also refused his request to transfer the probe to the CBI but directed him must be given a previous notification 7 days before taking the steps of coercion against him.
HC bench from Judge Nitin Jamdar and Kotwal Nest said, “First Prima Facie reveals a punished violation” and therefore the police are bound to customs to investigate.
HC said Shukla did not produce a reason to cancel the shootout or prevent further investigation.
HC also said that from fir contents, it was clear what was shown and called by the opposition leader Devendra Fadnavis “is confidential and confidential information.
These documents attract the provisions of Part 5 of the official secret laws” and therefore at this stage it cannot be said that The action was not interested.
But HC said it was not indicated whether LOP could be called authority in the sense of part 5 of the ACT (which was related to the ‘wrong communication’ confidential information).
“Prayer for the transfer of investigations against the CBI on the grounds that the CBI is investigating a post of police officers is without services because of the two investigations are different.
Even if the contents of the applicant’s report are found correctly, the alleged illegal leak of official documents will be a violation, and this will not depend on results Investigation carried out by the CBI, “HC said.
HC said, “Giving a free charter for secret material leakage will not be considered below section 8 (2) of the RTI Act.” The section says public authorities can allow access to information if the public interest in disclosure exceeds damage to protected interests.
Shukla was transferred in September to CRPF, said the senior adviser Mahesh Jethmalani with Advocate Gunjan Mangala, and Fir it was registered a day after March 20, 2021 Report by the former Secretary of the Additional Head of the State (Home) of the Sitaram Kunte, which he said was said the “harmless” report was mentioned.
He added, “but the country’s reaction is disproportionate with his fear.” “We did not find the benefits in this shipment ….
FIR and the current investigation was not about the contents of the report but on the act of releasing official documents without permission,” HC said.
The Shukla case is no violation when the problem of public interest.
But Khambata said “The assumption of applicants who submit letters and pen drives will be a public interest is a mistake.
It is said that the Petitioner’s communication and reports involving information transcripts, at the stage where the leaky report will remind those involved and will cause stigma to all transfers.
“HC said,” FIR was submitted on March 25, 2021.
To this day, the Petitioner (Shukla) was not mentioned in Fir.
We were told that the applicant is currently serving in the State of Telangana and …
holding important positions …
We argue that the Applicant Enable to the protection of the advance notice of seven working days if the respondent’s country intends to take the steps of coercion against the applicant.
“
Bombay HC rejects Rashmi Shukla’s dismissal petition
