Christian priest gets 40-year jail term for molesting minor in Church

Belthangady, Jun 26: Thieves broke into a house at Kalmanja village in Belthangady taluk of Dakshina Kannada during the wee hours on Friday and decamped with cash and valuables worth Rs 13 lakhs after tying the inmates of an areca merchant's house.

Police said the stolen valuables include 40 sovereigns gold, one kg silver and cash of Rs 25,000. The robbery took place in the house of Achyut Bhat who is an areca merchant in Ujire.

The house inmates opened the door after hearing dogs barking. Immediately the criminals, wearing masks, barged into the house and threatening to kill tied them before escaping with the booty.

Bengaluru, July 23: The Janta Dal (Secular) and Congress that had joined hands together in Karnataka ‘to keep communal forces at bay, have once again turned archrivals. The development comes a year after the collapse of JD(S)-Congress coalition government in the state.

Recently, Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah claimed that the Congress would have won at least 10 seats in the Lok Sabha elections had it not been for the alliance with the JD(S). In response, former chief minister H D Kumaraswamy of the JD(S), who headed the coalition government, blamed the Congress for its many 'conspiracies'.

In a series of tweets on Wednesday, Kumaraswamy said he was prompted by Siddarmaiah's claims to recall what transpired during the coalition government. 

"There will never be a future alliance with Congress," Kumaraswamy declared, in a letter to his party colleagues on Wednesday. He claimed that there were many conspiracies on part of Congress, which led to the fall of the coalition government.

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.