Deendar Channabasaveshwara terror case: Beggar arrested after 16 years

Bengaluru, Jun 9: A 42-year-old founding director of an engineering consultancy firm lost Rs 65,000 to online fraudsters who posed as representatives of a mobile service provider and lured him with the offer of a fancy number recently.

Asif (name changed) received a text message on May 19, informing him that a platinum number, 9099999999, was available and interested people could dial a mobile number to avail it.

“Asif, who runs a mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) engineering consultancy near Shivajinagar, decided to get the fancy mobile number. He called the number and the receiver said they would generate an invoice for his request. After a fake invoice for Rs 64,900 was generated, Asif paid the money through online transaction that day. Asif waited for two weeks for the SIM card with the fancy number to reach him,” an officer said.

East CEN Crime police registered a case of cheating under section 420 of IPC and sections under the Information Technology Act after Asif lodged a complaint on June 6.

Mangaluru, May 15: Dakshina Kannada Superintendent of Police on Friday warned those who are opposing quarantine to either go for it or face legal action under Epidemic Diseases Act.

In a release here on Friday, Mr B M Laxmi Prasad said that schools and hostels have been identified for quarantining those who arrive from other states. Those, who return, will be quarantined in the respective Gram Panchayat/local bodies’ jurisdiction. The public should not panic over the quarantine facility.

The quarantine facility has been introduced in the interest of the general public. If anyone opposes or protests against such facility, then legal action will be initiated against them, he warned.

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.