Maria alleges ‘senior officer’ could have influenced verdict
It is now learnt that eight days before the verdict on misleading information provided to Vinita Kamte, in response to her RTI query seeking police call log transcripts of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria and senior IPS officer Amitabh Rajan had written to the State Chief Information Commissioner, stating that his decision could be influenced by a “senior officer”, or by Ashok Kamte’s widow herself.
The application by Maria and Rajan was filed on July 1 in response to an earlier statement made by CIC Ratnakar Gaikwad, who presided over the hearing. At the final hearing on June 26, 2014, Gaikwad had stated that he was approached by “a senior police officer” who told him that the control room call record log provided by Maria and Rajan to Kamte’s widow was wrong.
The application further read that Gaikwad should reveal the name of the officer so that he can be examined. However, eight days after this application was filed, Gaikwad on July 9 asked the state govt to set up a judicial inquiry to ascertain why misleading information was provided to the RTI query filed by slain officer Ashok Kamte’s wife Vinita, in an incident of such prominence as the 26/11 terror attacks.
Kamte then appealed and subsequently information was provided, but she alleged there were serious discrepancies in the information given in November 2009 and February 2010, because of which the complaint was filed with CIC Ratnakar Gaikwad. “At the time of the final hearing on June 26 this year, you expressed that ‘one very senior police officer approached me and told me that policemen have manipulated the record. I would not like to disclose his name’. Again you reiterated that he was a very senior officer,” the application of Maria and Rajan read.
The application further stated that this meant there were extraneous considerations that could influence Gaikwad’s decision, and there was suspicion that this ‘trick’ was exercised by Kamte to get the decision in her favour, also considering she is the widow of the late IPS officer. “I request you to examine the police officer who approached you, and an opportunity may be provided to the defence to dispel the indictment,” the application read.
Lawyers representing Maria and Rajan further allege that the verdict had been passed without disposing or responding to their application. “We didn’t even know when the judgment was pronounced. It was only after a copy from Mantralaya was received that we realised it,” said Advocate Jamal Khan, one of the lawyers representing the two.
While Vinita Kamte refused to comment, CIC Ratnakar Gaikwad did not respond to several calls and a text message.
The application by Maria and Rajan was filed on July 1 in response to an earlier statement made by CIC Ratnakar Gaikwad, who presided over the hearing. At the final hearing on June 26, 2014, Gaikwad had stated that he was approached by “a senior police officer” who told him that the control room call record log provided by Maria and Rajan to Kamte’s widow was wrong.
The application further read that Gaikwad should reveal the name of the officer so that he can be examined. However, eight days after this application was filed, Gaikwad on July 9 asked the state govt to set up a judicial inquiry to ascertain why misleading information was provided to the RTI query filed by slain officer Ashok Kamte’s wife Vinita, in an incident of such prominence as the 26/11 terror attacks.
In 2009, Vinita Kamte had filed the RTI application seeking call log transcripts of 26/11. The information was initially denied, allegedly at the behest of then Crime Branch chief Rakesh Maria.
Kamte then appealed and subsequently information was provided, but she alleged there were serious discrepancies in the information given in November 2009 and February 2010, because of which the complaint was filed with CIC Ratnakar Gaikwad. “At the time of the final hearing on June 26 this year, you expressed that ‘one very senior police officer approached me and told me that policemen have manipulated the record. I would not like to disclose his name’. Again you reiterated that he was a very senior officer,” the application of Maria and Rajan read.
The application further stated that this meant there were extraneous considerations that could influence Gaikwad’s decision, and there was suspicion that this ‘trick’ was exercised by Kamte to get the decision in her favour, also considering she is the widow of the late IPS officer. “I request you to examine the police officer who approached you, and an opportunity may be provided to the defence to dispel the indictment,” the application read.
Lawyers representing Maria and Rajan further allege that the verdict had been passed without disposing or responding to their application. “We didn’t even know when the judgment was pronounced. It was only after a copy from Mantralaya was received that we realised it,” said Advocate Jamal Khan, one of the lawyers representing the two.
While Vinita Kamte refused to comment, CIC Ratnakar Gaikwad did not respond to several calls and a text message.
