Two get bail in Moodbidri Bajrang Dal leader murder case

Mangaluru, Jul 8: A corporator and a staff in Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) have tested positive for the coronavirus. 

The woman corporator, who was under home quarantine for past few days ago, received her covid test report today. 

A staff of health department who works in MCC also tested positive for the covid-19. 

The woman corporator had recently attended a primary health centre meeting. A person who had attended the meeting was later tested positive. Hence the corporator was placed under home quarantine.

Udupi, Jul 24: Udupi Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) has filed a complaint with the Cybercrime Police alleging that fake websites were created in the Corporation name and charging for registration to 1800 engineer jobs amidst covid-19 crisis. 

In a complaint submitted to Udupi Cyber Crime, Economic Offences & Narcotics (CEN) police station on Friday, UPCL Association General Manager K Shashidar alleged that four fake websites have been created in the name of UPCL and have claimed that 1,800 engineers posts are vacant in UPCL.

The fake websites have also been demanding Rs 500 fee for the registration of the job aspirants.

The FAKE websites are: www.udupipowerproject.com, www.upclindia.com, www.udupiproject.com, www.udupiproject.in. Helpline numbers +918046800985, +911149409800, +911149409807  too have been given in these fake websites.

Udupi CEN station has registered a case under Section 66(c), 66(d) of IT Act.

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.