17-year-old boy rapes, impregnates 14-year-old girl

Brahmavar, Jul 3: Two friends drowned accidentally in a rivulet while catching fish near Barkur in Brahmavar taluk of Udupi district today.  

The deceased have been identified as Karthik (20), a final year B.Com student, and Harsha (26), who was working as a recovery agent for a local finance company. Both were local residents. 

The incident took place around 8 a.m. when they were trying to catch fish. Even though a few locals were there on the spot they could not save the duo as the water level has increased in the rivulet due to rains. After an hour the bodies were fished out. 

A case was registered at Brahmavar police station and investigations are on.

Mangaluru, May 4: In order to protect the frontline coronavirus fighters from the pathogen, students at Sahyadri College of Engineering & Management has developed face shields that will help the front-line healthcare workers.

Mr Johnson Tellis - Chief Innovation Officer, Mr Gautham Nayak - Design Engineer and DreamWorks Makerspacerun by determined students, supported by Sahyadri Start-up ecosystem, at Sahyadri College of Engineering & Management has headed the team.

The team took the initiative along with other maker communities in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and the likes, with a pledge to produce and deliver 1 Million face shields across India. In three weeks, the team has contributed to the cause and delivered more than3500 face shields and a ventilator splitter for the Dakshina Kannada and Shimoga region.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.