Re: [HumJanenge] IAS officer fined Rs 27K for holding back information

What will be Your Further arguments when the Section 22  and Section 21 are quoted and suppose the argument put forth is that RTI Act Overides IPC We Have On Board certain instances of a great Doubting TOM who is also an PIO  seeking from the Citizen a proof of his Citizenship Supposedly to Fulfil the Compliance of Section 3 and when Required to show cause  may resort to the protection Umbrella of Section 21 N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. --- On Tue, 11/10/11, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote: From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] IAS officer fined Rs 27K for holding back information To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Cc: "sudhakar hegde" <sudhakarhegde733@gmail.com>, "Rina Mahindra" <rina17@gmail.com>, "lalita_c" <lalita_c@indiatimes.com>, "Dhyan -" <dhyan40@hotmail.com>, "surisureshsuri23" <surisureshsuri23@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, 11 October, 2011, 5:32 PM Friends Section 11 defines "Person".  The charging section is not 11 but 175 or 176 IPC.   the Penal code is a general criminal law enacted by the Center. State Laws made in contravention of a similar  central Law are termed as contravention of Central Law and subject to certain restriction are void ab initio.   IN such of the cases where there is a contravention of State and Central Laws, the State Laws can still be valid only if the assent of the President of India is obtained, and in such case also, this state made law will be applicable only within that State.  As long as there are no contraventin of central law by the State Law, the Central Law still prevails over the State Law, in many cases.   In so far as the Lok Ayuktha Law is concerned, the Lokayuktha Act is special law which can be tried by a Special Judge. The standard criminal Laws are targetting the  classified crimes in the IPC by every citizen. The Lok Auktha Act only applicable to certain contravention or commitment of certain laws under section 7,10,11, 13, and 15 committed by a public servant.   These are taking gratification in respect of an official Act,( abetment of taking gratification by illegal means to influence public servant, taking gratification for personal influencing public servant,)  public servant obtaining valuables w/o considerations from person related to his official  job, criminal misconduct - habitually accepting valuable things from person officially connected with his work,   The special Court to take cognizance of offences under the Lok ayuktha act, needs the permission of the Government, since this comes under the Service and conduct rules.  There is no prohibition from the Government giving the required permission for prosecution under Lok Ayuktha Act.  The law requires the  permission for certain government employees and certain public servants for the reason that they are the appointing authority who only can terminate the appointment.   This also enables the government to take collusive actions like deciding on promotion or not, issues related to grauity, etc., in  case of government employuees and in case of public servant not being government employee, to take appropriate steps not only to terminate their status but also to build up records to prevent such persons again from being appointed or to review the effects of decisions action taken by such persons and to decide what remedy should be adopted to minimise or mitigate the damages.  If the Government is sitting on a decision to permit the prosecution, the government is being estopped from contradicting their own Law as well as their taking Oath to abide by the Constitution at the time of taking over power after election, as well as they may be contradictin the fundamental right under constitution of other persons who have been permitted to be prosecuted uinder similar circumstances.  As far as offences under the lok ayuktha act, the person has to give a complaint to Lok ayuktha police.  In the case of 175 and 176 the authority who should have received the information can also lodge a complaint with the Police independently in his official capacity.dwarakanthdm .On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote: Mr. Dwarakanath , If an government servant goes behind the bars for more than 48 hours ,  he may loose his job , please enlight us ,  As per the remedy given by sri. Dwarakanath any Pio provides misleading and false information we can invoke sectioin 11 of IPC , But how to proceed whether police complaint has to be lodged or PCR to be filed , without the permission of  government how can go ahead  there are somany    complaints pending before the karnataka lokayuktha for such false and misleading information provided , but in lokayuktha the bureaurcrats are dragging the cases , in such cases  lokayukhta officers says they can suggest the government to coduct enquiry , Whether in such situation also can we use section 11 of IPC please clarify  ARS KUMAR , BE LLB , MA JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION  Social activist  Founder : SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RESEARCH CENTRE FOR SOCIAL & POLITICAL REFORMS  BANGALORE