Beef possession not a criminal offence, rules Bombay HC

May 6, 2016

Mumbai, May 6: The Bombay High Court on Friday pronounced the judgement on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the beef ban in Maharashtra.

BeefAccording to news agency, the Bombay HC has passed order, which says that beef ban will continue in Maharashtra.

A ban on cow and bullock slaughtering to continue but beef possession (if brought from outside Maharashtra) is not a criminal offence, ruled the HC.

A division bench of Justices AS Oka and SC Gupte had reserved the ruling in January after hearing the arguments.

In February 2015, the President granted assent to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act. While the original 1976 Act banned slaughter of cows, the amendment prohibited, in addition, slaughter of bulls and bullocks and possession and consumption of their meat.

As per the Act, slaughter attracts a five-year jail-term and Rs 10,000 fine while possession of meat of bull or bullock attracts one-year in jail and Rs 2,000 fine.

During the hearing, the HC had refused to grant interim stay to the provisions penalising the possession of beef.

Arif Kapadia, a city resident, and noted lawyer Harish Jagtiani had challenged the provision which says mere possession of beef anywhere in the state is a crime.

This is arbitrary and undermines the cosmopolitan nature of the city which houses people from all religions and communities, they had contended.

Other petitions had been filed by Vishal Sheth, a lawyer, and Shaina Sen, a student, contending that the ban on beef violates fundamental rights of citizens.

Comments

Curious
 - 
Friday, 6 May 2016

Rat poisoning should also be banned because it is vehicle of so called God Ganesh. if everyone kills rat Ganesh will have no vehicle to ride to save and serve his devotees.

Satheesha
 - 
Friday, 6 May 2016

Why not other items like chicken, pork, fish and mutton not touched by the law. All lives are equally important but why this special category. Then all should be asked to be vegetarians

Shiva
 - 
Friday, 6 May 2016

One thing which Fadnavis should have concentrated is to make possession of cow and bulls attractive proposition to holders rather than go for ban on slaughter. this he would have achieved by making green every where, make water available and feed available, provide effective cost recovery of produce .. instead by banning he is burdening people who possess assets as cattle more marginalized and economically poorer .. his vision and his party''s vision is self centered and lacks focus of economics but working against poor, marginalized farmers, dalits and minorities,,, classic case of intolerance, stupidity and religious bigotry,, he deserves to be sacked ..

Real Hindu
 - 
Friday, 6 May 2016

Beef ban is on possession too. only beef procured from outside maharashtra allowed.but that we will handle by other

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
May 30,2020

Udupi, May 30: Following the announcement of re-opening of places of worship from June 8, Ibrahim Musliyar Bekal, the Qadhi of Udupi has called upon the Centre and State governments to issue uniform guidelines for Muslims to be followed while going to mosques for congregational prayers.

In a media statement, he said that even though the government is relaxing the lockdown in a phased manner things will not be like before as people have to follow the precautionary measures to control the spread of the coronavirus. 

He said that the union and state governments after holding discussions with the authorities of Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards and Islamic scholars, should form a uniform guidelines for all mosques.

He also suggested a few guidelines such as offering congregational prayers soon after adaan, closing the mosque soon after prayers, maintaining physical distance and avoiding the use of toilet in mosques. 

He also suggested the sick, elderly people and children to prefer to offer prayers in homes instead of mosques until situation becomes normal. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 6,2020

Wuhan, Feb 6: Chinese multinational conglomerate holding company Tencent has allegedly published "real" data on the novel coronavirus deaths, with briefly listing death toll as 24,589 -- way too higher than over 500 deaths China has officially announced to date.

According to Taiwan News, "Tencent... seems to have inadvertently released what is potentially the actual number of infections and deaths, which were astronomically higher than official figures".

Tencent, on its webpage titled "Epidemic Situation Tracker," showed confirmed cases of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in China as standing at 154,023 - over 10 times the official figure given to the world on February 1.

Data leaked: Tencent lists 25,000 deaths in China, 1.54 lakh infections from coronavirus
It listed the number of suspected cases as 79,808, four times the official figure.

"The number of cured cases was only 269, well below the official number that day of 300. Most ominously, the death toll listed was 24,589, vastly higher than the 300 officially listed that day".

Once people noticed this, Tencent immediately updated the numbers to reflect the government's "official" numbers.

"Netizens noticed that Tencent has on at least three occasions posted extremely high numbers, only to quickly lower them to government-approved statistics," said the report.

Some people speculated a coding problem may be behind the real "internal" data but others believe that someone is actually trying to reveal the real numbers.

Tencent was yet to officially comment on these reports.

"According to multiple sources in Wuhan, many coronavirus patients are unable to receive treatment and die outside of hospitals."

There have been multiple reports of Wuhan officials cremating deceased coronavirus victims before they could be added to the official death toll.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the coronavirus numbers coming out of China are "fishy".

If the numbers from the alleged Tencent leak are accurate, it would put coronavirus' mortality rate at almost 16 per cent. By comparison, SARS' mortality rate was 9.6 per cent, reports CCN.

Caijing, an independent magazine based in Beijing that covers societal, political, and economic issues, has also claimed that the Communist Party of China (CCP) is underreporting the extent of the coronavirus outbreak.

Caijing's article on Coronavirus that detailed how Wuhan officials are not reporting real figures was censored in China.

As of Thursday, the official death toll in China rose to 563, with 28,018 confirmed cases.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.