PM's intervention on Mahadayi water dispute impossible: Jagadish Shettar

Mangaluru, Feb 27: An utterly unprofessional thief, who fell asleep after breaking into a house, was caught by the house owner and handed over to the police in the coastal district of Dakshina Kannada.

The hilarious incident took place on Wednesday in the one-storey, tiled-roof house owned by Sudarshan at Ullas Junction under the limits of Uppinangady police station.

The thief, who gained entry into the house by removing the roof-tiles, has been identified as Anil Sahani, a native of Bihar’s Majipur district. He was snoring on the sofa with a set of keys clutched in his hand when the house owner woke up in the morning.

The house owner, who was sure that the thief was drunk, woke him up by hitting him with a stick and then handed him over to the police.

According to police, the thief was tired after removing the tiles on Tuesday night and hence he decided to take a nap soon after entering the house.

He grabbed a bunch of keys kept near the TV stand and then lied down on the sofa. He woke up only when the house owner hit him with a stick the next morning.

Mangaluru, Jan 7: The city police arrested a youth on charge of spreading messages against political leaders through WhatsApp and allegedly issuing life threats warnings against them.

The accused has been identified as Anwar, a resident of Peruvai village in Bantwal taluk of Dakshina Kannada. He was working in Qatar.

On Monday, Yathish from Vittal filed a complaint and based on that police arrested Anwar.

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.