Mangaluru youth dies in Saudi Arabia

Udupi, Mar 1: Acting on credible information, Udupi district police arrested five persons and seized 1.35 kg of crude gold worth Rs 56.99 lakh from the possession of the accused, custom department said on Sunday.

A case has been registered against four people at Kundapur and one at Byndoor on charges of gold smuggling. The accused were transporting gold from Calicut to Bhatkal, informed Joannes George, joint Commissioner of Customs.

Off these five accused, four persons were held at Kundapur, while other at Byndoor on Saturday evening.

Bengaluru, Feb 3: The Karnataka government on Monday ordered high alert across border districts after neighbouring Kerala reported the second confirmed case of dreaded n-CoV Coronavirus. District administrations in Kodagu, Mangaluru, Chamarajanagar and Mysuru that share boundary with Kerala have been put on high alert over the movement of people with suspected cases.

In a statement released on Monday, the Health and Family welfare department said that these districts have been directed to immediately report to the State Surveillance Unit (SSU) if they come across any suspected cases of people infected with Coronavirus.

Currently, about 51 people who returned from Coronavirus-affected regions have been identified and 46 are under home isolation across Karnataka. So far, 44 samples have been sent to the National Institute of Virology, Pune for analysis and out of which 29 samples have revealed negative results. Yet, the state government has put in all possible measures to check the spread of the virus in any part of the state.

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.