PRODUCTION OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND DESCRIPTION MADE BY SECTION 162 OF EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

RTI and the RTS act adjudication has been designed as a need based aim and objective of the demand under public service/utility and definitely reducing the manpower and time limits required for the potential proceedings and results in comparison to the old system maintained by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act  1 of 1872) the law relating to production of un-published official records as evidence in courts, contained in Section 123 , 124 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, where in Section 162 states that :-- A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to court notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court. The Court, if it thinks fit , may inspect the document unless it refers to matter of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility. If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the Court may, If it thinks fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence, and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian penal Code"For the purpose of these Sections of the aforesaid Act the expression " Officer at the Head of the Department concerned "may be held to mean the officer who is in control of the department and in whose charge records of the department remain. Ordinarily such an officer would be the Secretary to the State Government. but in case of attached offices like Directorate of Industries, or Directorate of Agriculture etc, the Director concerned may be regarded as the "Head of the Department" for these purposes. Only such an officer should be treated as the authority to withhold or give the necessary permission for the production of official documents in evidence.

WHY PROVISION OF (RTI) AND (RTS) MADE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY OF OUR COUNTRY ?

RTI activists and volunteers are bound to have independent character and proceedings for conclusion before the FAA and SIC or CIC as the case may be, keeping in view the explanation made by law code manual, prefixed by the Constitution of India, in this behalf on the basis of which all are supposed to work on the captioned subject of law and rules however wrong interpretation of law and rules and explanation made by the investigation by enquiry officers and the other related concern, partialities may be

destroy the real world assumptions and truth at the time of occurred incidents where Courts and commissions are depending upon the oral evidences and the law relating to the production of un -published official records as evidence in courts is contained in Section 123 , 124 and 162 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1of 1872) Section 123 and 124 respectively state that:-- "No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the Head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he think fit " (Section 123) . (2) "No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communication made to him in official confidence when he considers that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. " (Section 124).As such there is a distinction between the provisions of Section 123 and Section 124 of the evidence Act. If the document comes within Section 123 , the court cannot inspect it, though it can take other evidence to determine the character attributed to the document. Of course, it is for the court to ultimately determine whether the document in respect of which the privilege is claimed is a state document within the meaning of Section 123 of the Evidence Act. If a document falls within the ambit of Section 124 of the Evidence Act, the court can inspect the document to determine the claim of privilege.Keeping in view the above position of procedure laid (Act1of 1872 ) An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the Constitution of a Central Information Commission and State information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic , so required for informed citizenry and transparency of information and are vital to its functions and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;provisions of the RTI and the RTS Act has been empowered and introduced for the welfare of people of country and it is very necessary to protect and harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal ;--Er Fateh chand Guleria, C/O RTI Welfare Association registered number HPCD 3552 , Bilaspur Himachal pradesh phone number 9459334377.

NEED FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION IN CERTAIN CASES , AND DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PROVISONS OF SECTION 123 AND 124 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT.

There is a distinction between the provisons of Sec.123 and Sec.124 of the Evidence Act .If the document comes with in Sec.123 , the court can not inspect it , though it can take other evidence to determine the character attributed to the document. Of course , it is for the court to ultimately determine whether the document in respect of which the privilege is claimed is a state document within the meaning of Sec.123 of the Evidence Act.If a document falls within the ambit of Sec.124 of the Evidence Act , the court can inspect the document to determine the claim of privilege. As for as the need for corrective action in certain cases ,the Suits /writ petitions/applications (including for contempt of court) before courts and the Tribunal against the Government are often filed due to inaction at some level on the claims of the plaintiffs/applicants .It may be therefore taken after the final decision on the suit /case if it appears prima -facie that litigation was due to such a reason , responsibility needs to be fixed for the purpose of taking appropriate disciplinary action and recovery of the loss caused to the Government on account of the litigation.