Don't blame mobile service providers for forged customer documents: HC to cops

January 14, 2015

mobile service provider

Bengaluru, Jan 14: The High Court has quashed the FIRs filed by the police against the chief executive officers (Karnataka circle) of mobile service providers Airtel, Aircel, Idea and Tata Docomo for not verifying customers’ documents before issuing them SIM cards.

The FIRs were filed by the Malleswaram, HAL and Indiranagar police against the CEOs under sections 419, 420, 468 and 470 of the IPC before the 10th ACMM court. The police had contended the service providers were not checking the documents provided by dealers who were in the habit of forging the documents before issuing SIM?cards to customers.

In July 2010, the Deputy Director General of Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring Cell had written to the DG & IGP stating that during a random inspection, it was found there were multiple connections by service providers resulting in misuse of the SIM cards. Following the letter, the Bengaluru police commissioner directed the Central Crime Branch to take action. Accordingly, the inspector of the CCB’s women and narcotics cell filed a suo motu complaint at police stations across Bengaluru.

But senior counsel C V Nagesh, appearing for the mobile service providers, stated that the companies give SIM?cards to distributors who then distribute them to the retailers. The retailer is the one fabricating the documents before issuing the SIM cards and that the mobile service provider doesn’t have any role to play in it, he argued.

The senior counsel contended that mobile service providers had not violated section 4 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which talks about the conditions of licence. If the retailer distributes SIM cards by forging documents, the service provider cannot be held responsible for it, he asserted.

Justice N Anand on Tuesday observed that the misuse of SIM cards had become rampant of late and mobile phones were being used in bomb blasts.

Over 40 crore people in the country use mobile phones and another 20 crore are expected to use them in the next five years. If the distributor is committing an offence, the mobile service provider cannot be held responsible, he ruled and disposed of the criminal petition.

GO on revenue stamp

The State government told the High Court on Tuesday it had issued an order on December 31, 2014, to reintroduce Re one revenue stamps, prompting a division bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy to dispose of a petition filed by Vijaykumar Sarj S Desai, a resident of Gadag.

The petitioner had argued that the ban imposed on revenue stamps in 2008 following the multi-crore revenue stamp scam had created a black market. Although banned in Karnataka, revenue stamps are being brought from other states and sold here, he contended.

‘Amend petition on KPSC’

The High Court on Tuesday directed activist T J?Abraham to amend his petition by changing the respondent as Governor’s office instead of the Governor.

A division bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy gave the direction and posted the next hearing to Friday.

The petition challenges the appointment of the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC). Abraham had argued that no guidelines were framed and there was no transparency in the procedure to nominate chairperson, vice-chairperson and members to the KPSC.

Objections filed to Anbazhagan’s plea

Former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha and special public prosecutor Bhavani Singh on Tuesday filed their objection in the High Court to the petition filed by DMK general secretary K Anbazhagan seeking permission to intervene as a party under respondents to assist the SPP in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha.

The special bench of Justice C R Kumaraswamy, while hearing the criminal appeals filed by Jayalalitha and her aides, sought to know whether Anbazhagan was a lawyer whether he had and any training in fighting a legal battle in the court under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. “This will not lead anywhere. Moreover, it would be against the law to allow Anbazhagan to intervene as the party respondent to assist SPP in the case,” the judge said.

Anbazhagan, in his petition has said that he had previously intervened before the appropriate courts at all stages of the trial to ensure that justice was not derailed by powerful persons.

During the hearing, Jayalalitha's counsel L Nageswara Rao contended that the trial court had overlooked several judgements and not considered the binding nature of various income tax orders and decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the income and level of expenditure pleaded by her.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 24,2020

Apr 24: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday sought Prime Minister Narendra Modi's intervention in bringing bodies of Keralites who died in the Gulf countries due to non-COVID-19 reasons to the state without any delay for performing last rites in their home towns.

In a letter, he wanted Modi to direct Indian embassies to issue necessary clearances without seeking individual approvals from the Ministry of Home Affairs and avoid any delay so that the remains reach Kerala early. It has been learnt that a 'clearance certificate' from the Indian embassies concerned was required to process the application for bringing home the bodies.

The embassies are insisting on production of no-objection certificate from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, he said in the letter, a copy of which was released to the media here on Friday. The Centre had already agreed that in case the deaths are not COVID related, such certificates are not necessary.

The bodies are now being brought in the cargo planes as passenger flights are not being operated due to the lockdown. Chief Minister said he had received several grievances from the NRKs in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries on the delay in bringing home the bodies of those who died there. "They are already under tremendous stress and anxiety due to the lockdown imposed in those countries and the consequent stoppage of international flights", Vijayan said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 10,2020

London, Jul 10: India's Reliance will load its first cargo of Venezuelan crude in three months this week in exchange for diesel under a swap deal the parties say is permitted under the US sanctions regime on the Latin American country, according to a Reliance source and a shipping document from state oil firm PDVSA.

Washington has exempted some Venezuelan oil trade from sanctions when transactions are in exchange for fuel and food or to repay debts rather than for cash. But that trade slowed as the US tightened restrictions and refiners, shippers and insurers have been steering clear of Venezuela to avoid any risk they may fall foul of sanctions.

Washington aims to deprive Venezuelan socialist President Nicolas Maduro of his main source of revenue with the sanctions, which have driven Venezuelan oil exports to their lowest level since the 1940s.

Reliance gave the US State Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) notice of the diesel swap and received word back that the policies that allowed the transaction were still in place, the Reliance source told Reuters.

Reliance has previously said that its supplies of fuel to PDVSA in exchange for crude were permitted under sanctions.

An oil tanker named Commodore would load the cargo of crude in Venezuela and ship it to India, the tanker's manager NGM Energy said.

"All details of the transaction and transportation were shared with US authorities, who confirmed that the U.S. policy authorizing such transactions remained in place," NGM Energy said in a statement to Reuters.

"The shipment is made in connection with the humanitarian exchange of oil for diesel fuel."

The Commodore is loading a 1.9-million barrel cargo of crude for Reliance at Venezuela's main oil port of Jose, according to an internal PDVSA cargo schedule seen by Reuters.

The Liberian-flagged Commodore was at the Jose Terminal on Thursday, ship tracking data on Refinitiv Eikon showed.

The US State Department, Treasury's enforcement arm OFAC, and PDVSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Reliance has a swap deal to provide diesel to Venezuela in exchange for fuel but has not received a cargo of crude since April. Sources at Indian refiners told Reuters earlier this year they planned to wind down their purchases of Venezuelan oil to avoid any problems with supply due to sanctions.

Other long-time customers of PDVSA, including Italy's Eni and Spain's Repsol, have continued taking cargoes of Venezuelan crude this year under permission granted by the US Treasury Department to exchange the oil for diesel supply as part of debt repayment deals, according to sources from the companies.

NGM Energy also manages the Voyager I tanker, which the United States removed from its list of sanctioned vessels last week after NGM and the ship's owner Sanibel Shiptrade said they would increase measures to ensure vessels complied with international sanctions.

"Last month, NGM Energy SA adopted a firm policy of not allowing vessels under its commercial management to trade to Venezuela, or to carry Venezuelan petroleum cargoes, absent US government authorization," NGM said.

"NGM continues to stand by that pledge."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.