Mangaluru cops book a suspect for audio threat against Janardhana Poojary

Harsha Raj Gatty

December 7, 2018

Mangaluru, Dec 7: Mangalore City Police have booked a case against a person for allegedly demanding the 'encounter' of former Union Minister and Congress leader B Janardhana Poojary. The suspect who claimed to be an ardent supporter in his statement said that he was upset with Poojary for his pro-Ram Temple remarks, however had no criminal intent.

On Thursday, the Kavoor police booked a case against Hakeem Puttur under IPC 504 (intentionally trying to provoke breach of the peace) and IPC 507 (criminal intimidation). The development comes less than a week after the alleged voice message circulated against 81-year old veteran Congress leader.

In the 'audio', Hakeem has allegedly criticized Poojary, after the leader spoke in favour of the construction of Ram Mandir. Hakeem further demanded that Poojary needs to be 'encountered' or deported from the country along with everyone who demands for Ram Mandir.

"Muslims should not support Congress until Poojary is suspended from the party. Poojary was born to RSS. He has association with the RSS and tries to hide his identity behind the Congress mask. I have been repeating this fact since 10 years but I was rebuked. However, things became clear after he invited Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat and other RSS affiliates and not then (Karnataka) Chief Minister Siddaramaiah for his book release.”

Going further, the message also demanded the explanation from Congress on why party functionaries were retaining Poojary for so long despite his questionable actions that destroyed the party at polls. "Poojary's statement against Siddaramaiah during the previous Assembly election, lead to the downfall of Congress in Dakshina Kannada... once involved in the destruction of the image of the party, how can one take claim for its growth?” he questioned.

While former Mangaluru South MLA, J R Lobo had filed a police complaint against the voice-message and had sought a detailed probe, even Dakshina Kannada MP Nalin Kumar Kateel had expressed condemnation.

Meanwhile, taking on the 'voice message' (authenticity of the voice, could not be verified till the publication of this report) route again, the suspect allegedly floated another message, while apologising for his remark against Poojary, he reiterated that the former Union Minister should not have made remark favouring the construction of Ram Temple. "I have not said anywhere, I will kill Poojary. I have only said that anyone who violates Constitution, including Poojary must either be killed in an encounter or deported out of the country... Being a Congress leader how he can make such statements when the matter is in the court," the voice said.

Comments

Jai Biruve.

Boka Poojary na vishyag bathnda nama biruver buduvana

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.

10 years after Mangaluru Air crash, SC awards Rs 7.64 cr comp to kin of one of the victims

News Network

May 21,2020

Mangaluru, May 21: The Supreme Court has awarded Rs 7.64 crore compensation to the next of kin of a man who was killed in a crash-landing of Air India Express Flight 812 from Dubai in Mangalore on May 22, 2010. The accident killed 158 out of 166 passengers on board.

The family of the 45-year-old Mahendra Kodkany, which include his wife, daughter and son, were earlier granted Rs 7.35 crore as compensation by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This compensation will now get enhanced after adding 9 per cent interest per annum (on the amount yet to be paid), to be paid by Air India.

Kodkany was the regional director for the Middle East for a UAE-based company. The aircraft overshot the runway and went down a hillside and burst into flames.

A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said: "The total amount payable on account of the aforesaid heads works out to Rs 7,64,29,437. Interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum shall be paid on the same basis as has been awarded by the NCDRC. The balance, if any, that remains due and payable to the complainants, after giving due credit for the amount which has already been paid, shall be paid within a period of two months."

The apex court noted that in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of an employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. The top court said: "We are unable to accept the reasons which weighed with the NCDRC in making a deduction of AED (UAE currency) 30,000 from the total CTC. Similarly, and for the same reason, we are unable to accept the submission of Air India that the transport allowance should be excluded. The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons."

The top court observed that the deceased was evidently, a confirmed employee of his employer. "We have come to the conclusion that thirty per cent should be allowed on account of future prospects", added the court.

The top court noted that if the amount which has been paid by Air India is in excess of the payable under the present judgement, "we direct under Article 142 of the Constitution (discretionary powers) that the excess shall not be recoverable from the claimants," said the court.

Comments

First of all A Salute To Lawyer One Who Handled This Case Against Carriers Mismanagement Wrong Action.

Sure this is the second victory for the lawyer against arriers mismanagement.

Over all it is the sign of a profesional ; qualified eligble lawyers efforts and right decision from a capable knowlegable judge. Suit case operating lawyers cannot handle such specilized cases.

They lawyer may handled rest of the vicitms cases or he not. But for his siincere efforts for the past ten years delcares whatn he is. Am personally met him and witnessed his court appearance hope and wish him all the best and success .

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.

Mangaluru: Liquor worth Rs 1 lakh stolen from shop amidst lockdown

News Network

April 5,2020

Thieves broke into an MSIL liquor outlet at Kuthar Nityanandanagara on the outskirts of Mangaluru and decamped with liquor worth Rs 1 lakh. The incident came to light on Friday morning.

The outlet belongs to Purushotham Pilar.

Before committing the crime, the thieves had hung a cloth in front of the shop shutter of the outlet to ensure that no one could notice the crime. They also stole DVR of the CCTV the was installed.

On noticing that outlet was open, many people had even come to purchase liquor. The police took all those who had visited the outlet to purchase to the task and chased them away.

The thieves also stole 10 packets of cigarettes from a paan shop situated adjacent to the MSIL outlet.

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.

High Court rejects plea to transfer Amulya Leona’s slogan case to NIA

News Network

July 29,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 29: The Karnataka High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice H P Sandesh today rejected an application that wanted Amulya Leona’s case to be transferred from Karnataka Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The bench, while observing that extraordinary jurisdiction can’t be exercised for transferring the case to the NIA, asked “What is so special that investigation should be transferred to NIA?”

The court, in its previous hearing, had questioned the maintainability of the petition seeking transfer of the sedition case against Leona to the NIA.

According to the petitioner, advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty, the case is a serious matter against national integration and unity and has not been investigated properly by the police. The state police also failed to file the chargesheet within 90 days, he said, and also asked for cancellation of her bail.

The bench asked the petitioner as to how a bail, already granted to a person, can be cancelled. “Is it not the indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail if chargesheet is not filed within stipulated time? How can you make a prayer for cancellation of bail?” the Court asked.

The counsel for the petitioner also stated that in cases of a cognizable offence, when the chargesheet is purposely not filed within the stipulated time, the matter will have to transferred to the appropriate authority.

The court responded to his contention by asking him how could the court override law and cancel the bail. “Where is the question of cancellation of bail? Can we override the law and say that bail should be cancelled?” said the bench.

Advocate Vishal Raghu had filed the petition for transfer of Leona’s case, who was accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans at an anti-CAA rally on February 20 at Freedom Park. The advocate had blamed the probe team for not filing a chargesheet on time and has asked the state government to approach the higher court against bail granted to Leona.

Bengaluru student Amulya Leona was charged with sedition for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi. She was arrested by the Bengaluru police for allegedly shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogans at an anti- CAA Protest in Bengaluru in February this year. On June 11, she was granted conditional bail by the Bengaluru civil court.

Her bail plea was earlier rejected by a Bengaluru court, after she had spent a three-month period in jail, stating that she may abscond if she is released. The sessions judge Vidhyadhar Shirahatti had also stated that if the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond and may involve in similar offence which affects peace at large and hence her petition is liable to be rejected. The court had also noted that Amulya Leona is an influential person who may threaten and influence the witness and hamper the case in case of the prosecution and will abscond if released on bail.

Comments