China moving ahead, talking about temples and mosques will waste our time: Ex-Navy chief

Ahmedabad, Jul 5: A woman police sub-inspector (PSI) with Ahmedabad Police was arrested and sent to three-day police remand, on Saturday, for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 20 lakh from an Ahmedabad-based businessman — accused in two rape cases — in exchange for not applying a stringent act against him.

According to police officials, Shweta Jadeja, PSI and incharge of Mahila police station (West) in the city, was arrested by a team of Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) officials in Ahmedabad on Friday after the complainant in the case, the rape accused, approached the Crime Branch and stated that Jadeja had allegedly demanded Rs 35 lakh form him, in exchange for not booking him under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) Act.

The PASA Act in Gujarat gives power to the police to detain an accused and send them to a prison away from their native district. The complainant claimed that he already paid Rs 20 lakh of the total amount to Jadeja on February 3.

On Saturday, a sessions court awarded Jadeja a three-day remand with the Crime Branch, which will end at 11:30 am on July 7. Following this, the PSI will undergo a medical check-up and be presented before the magistrate again.

“We had originally demanded a seven-day remand. The accused officer has been sent to three-day remand for further investigation in the case,” said a senior police official in Ahmedabad.

According to police, complainant Kenal Shah — managing director of GSP Crop Science Private Limited, a crop solution-based company in Ahmedabad — is allegedly facing two separate rape cases under IPC section 376.

PSI Jadeja was first entrusted with the investigation of a rape case against Shah in January this year, lodged at Mahila police station (West).

The rape case complaint is of 2019. Another rape case against Shah was being probed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes Against Women), Mini Josef, wherein the investigation was reportedly completed.

As per the remand application report filed by the police, Jadeja had allegedly threatened Shah through his brother Bhavesh Shah — a joint managing director at GSP Crop Science Private Limited — and initially demanded Rs 25 lakh for not applying the PASA Act against the accused. The bribe amount was then settled at Rs 20 lakh and in February, the accused allegedly paid the amount via an office accountant to one Jayubha, allegedly a representative of Jadeja, from a finance office in Jamjodhpur area of Ahmedabad.

The report further stated that after the initial amount was paid, a third complaint was allegedly made against Kenal by a security officer at his office, Yograjsinh, for criminal intimidation. After the third complaint, PSI Jadeja had contacted Bhavesh again and demanded an additional sum of Rs 15 lakh for not applying the PASA Act against Kenal. The complaint from the security officer was not converted into an FIR and Shah has not been jailed yet.

However, It was after the demand of Rs 15 lakh that complainant Kenal approached the Crime Branch on June 27. An FIR was lodged against Jadeja at Ahmedabad DCB police station under sections seven and twelve of the Prevention of Corruption Act, charging her for “public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act”.

“Now that we have received the remand of the accused officer from the court, we will try to trace and recover the alleged Rs 20 lakh amount she received in this case,” said Deepan Bhadran, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad.

Shweta Jadeja is a PSI of the 2016-’17 batch and a resident of Vastrapur in Ahmedabad, while her native place is in Keshod of Junagadh district. The police have not recovered the bribe amount she allegedly accepted as of late Saturday.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.