Jain couple to leave minor daughter, Rs 100-cr property for monkhood

Davangere, Jul 19: A 9-year-old sniffer dog ran 12 km in the night to trace a murder accused and helped the police arrest him in Karnataka's Davangere rural area, an official said on Sunday.

"Doberman Pincher Tunga ran 12 km non-stop from the crime spot at Basavapattana in the city to a house at Kashipur in the rural where murder accused Chethan, 25, was hiding and helped us arrest him on July 17," Davangere Police Superintendent Hanumantha Rai said on phone.

Davangere is 260 km northwest of Bengaluru.

"Though Chethan allegedly shot dead his friend Chandra Nayak with a stolen service revolver on July 10 over sharing the booty (gold ornaments) of the theft they had committed recently with two others. We took female dog Tunga to the crime spot on July 16. She led the sleuths to the area where Chethan was hiding with two accomplices," Rai recalled.

While trained sniffer dogs normally run 4-5 km from a crime spot, Tunga could track the accused 12 km away.

When Tunga's handler (Head Constable Prakash) took her to the crime scene at 9.30 pm, she sniffed around and ran 12 km non-stop to Kashipur. She halted at a wine shop and went to a food joint later. Then she stopped at a house nearby at 12.30 am.

The prime accused (Chethan) was present in the house of his relative. He was arrested after he confessed to the theft and the murder.

The police are on the hunt to trace Chethan's two accomplices who fled from the house they were hiding in.

Karnataka Additional Director General of Police (law and order) Amar Kumar Pandey felicitated Tunga on July 17 at a function here for cracking the murder case with its exceptional sniffing traits.

Mangaluru, Jan 15: A 28-year-old man, who is a first-year MBBS dropout, was arrested by the police after he posed as a doctor and treated patients at a private hospital at Derlakatte on the outskirts of the city.

The arrested has been identified as Mohammed Habib Hussain, a native of Shivamogga, who was residing in Attavar, Mangaluru. He had discontinued studies after the first year due to personal reasons.

The incident took place on Sunday night  at Yenepoya Medical College, Derlakatte. Dr Sampathila Padmanabha, medical superintendent, Yenepoya Medical College, said the accused had come to the medical college at midnight on December 29.

After speaking to the security guard at the hospital entrance, he introduced himself as an assistant to the consulting urologist, and wanted to visit patients at the private ward situated at floor number 7.

After entering, he called the duty nurse to get case sheets. Later, he examined two women patients in the presence of the duty nurse, and also wrote a prescription on the patient case sheet. He also yelled at a nurse, saying that she isn’t doing her duty properly, and left the place.

However, the nurse who grew suspicious, informed the management, after the accused had left the place. The management, who crosschecked about the accused, found out that he is not a doctor, and that he is also not associated with the hospital.

The management sent an advisory to all employees to produce their identity cards, whenever they enter any wards, especially at night, and also to keep an eye on anyone suspicious. The same message was passed on to other hospitals in the vicinity.

The accused again showed up at the hospital on Sunday night. As security guards were told about strangers visiting the hospital in the guise of doctors, he was allowed to enter the hospital premises, so that he can be apprehended. He later went to the reception counter and queried about the consultant urologist. When he noticed that the staff had an idea about what was happening, he tried to flee from the spot. He was later caught by a security guard, and the police were informed. He was arrested by Ullal police station personnel.

Dr Padmanabha added that he used to roam around with his friend in a car. He was also involved in a similar incident at a private hospital in Kankanady, and the same has been informed to the police. He visited hospitals in a car, which has been seized by police.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.