Re-certification of ‘Udaipur Files' pending, Delhi HC told
The producers further said the six cuts suggested by the Centre had been made in addition to a disclaimer. Noting the submission that the film's re-certification was pending and a request for adjournment was made on behalf of one of the petitioners, a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela posted the hearing for July 30.
The petitions were filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani and Mohd Javed, who is an accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case.
Two petitions related to the movie row came before the High Court post a Supreme Court direction.
The top court directed the petitioners to move the high court against the Centre's revisional order of giving nod for the film's release.
The producers of the film had moved the top court after a high court bench previously stayed the film's release.
The apex court on July 25 said the film-makers' appeal against the high court order staying the film's release was infructuous for they had accepted the July 21 Centre nod for the film's release, subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer.
After High Court on Monday asked the CBFC counsel whether the movie was re-certified, it was informed that the film was approved with some cuts. The counsel for the film producers said the movie was approved with six cuts and one disclaimer and the certification was pending.
The bench noted since there was no re-certification till now, the producers couldn't release it without it. Observing there was no urgency, the court posted the hearing for July 30. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed.
The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Three held in ₹44 lakh cyber fraud case
Three persons were arrested by the cyber crime wing of the Hyderabad police for defrauding a city-based person of over ₹44 lakh by posing as trading advisors from a fictitious firm named 'Aveshta Study Group-W'. The accused were identified as Milind Manohar Narkar, 34, a private employee from Santacruz, Mumbai; Ranak Jagadish Patel, 31, a businessman from Bhiwandi, Thane; and Salik Imtiyaz Ahmed Siddiqui, 25, a private employee from Mumbra, Thane. All three were working in tandem with a cyber fraudster operating out of Dubai. According to investigators, the trio contacted the victim in June 2025 on phone, claiming to be professional trading advisors offering high return investment opportunities. Lured by the promise of substantial profits, the victim was persuaded to transfer funds into several bank accounts controlled by the accused. When the victim later attempted to withdraw the 'profits', he was asked to first pay a 20% 'service charge' on the returns. Believing the promise that both the profits and the original investment would be returned following this payment, the victim complied. In total, he was cheated of ₹44,04,753. During the investigation, it emerged that Milind Narkar was actively assisting the Dubai-based kingpin by converting fraudulently acquired funds into cryptocurrency. He also played a key role in sourcing and operating mule accounts, and was found to be accommodating account holders at various hotels in Mumbai. His network extended across seven other States in India where he allegedly facilitated the conversion of illicit gains into digital currency. The Hyderabad police seized three mobile phones from the accused. All three are believed to be working on commission for the overseas fraudster, by providing access to and managing local bank accounts used in the scam. Following the case, the Hyderabad police issued a public advisory warning citizens to be wary of suspicious investment schemes promising unusually high returns. Authorities have noted that scammers often pose as representatives of well-known firms and use forged documents, including fake SEBI certifications, to build credibility. Such fraudsters commonly advertise via platforms like Telegram, WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook, and often share fake profit screenshots to gain victims' trust. Citizens have been urged to verify investment schemes thoroughly before parting with their money and to avoid making hasty financial decisions based on promises of quick returns. Victims of cyber fraud are advised to immediately dial 1930 or visit: for assistance.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Delhi HC upholds Medha Patkars conviction in defamation case by LG Saxena
New Delhi, Jul 29 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi LG V K Saxena in 2000. Justice Shalinder Kaur said the trial court order, against which Patkar had approached the high court, did not require any interference. 'Upon perusal this court finds no illegality in the order (by trial court) and requires no interference, and (appeal) accordingly dismissed," Justice Kaur said. Saxena filed the case 23 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat. The high court said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law. It said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The judge also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on 'probation of good conduct", and said it did not require any interference. Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison. The high court, however, modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through VC or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances. The court also dismissed Patkar's plea against dismissal of her application to introduce and examine an additional witness to prove her defamation case lodged against Saxena. While 70-year-old Patkar was represented by senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, advocate Gajinder Kumar argued on behalf of Saxena. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case. The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on 'probation of good conduct"on furnishing a probation bond of Rs 25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing Rs 1 lakh as fine. The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000. On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also 'crafted to incite negative perceptions" about him. The accusation that the complainant was 'mortgaging" the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said. On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was 'rightly convicted" and there was 'no substance" in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case. PTI UK ZMN view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
When Sunjay Kapur Alleged Karisma Kapoor Married Him As "Rebound" After Break-Up With Abhishek Bachchan
Sunjay Kapur and Karisma Kapoor's troubled marriage has been under immense public scrutiny following the business tycoon's sudden death during a Polo match in the UK on June 12. The couple filed for a divorce in 2014, which was eventually settled in 2016. During the divorce proceedings, Sunjay alleged that Karisma married him as "rebound" after her break-up with Abhishek Bachchan. What's Happening Abhishek Bachchan and Karisma Kapoor's engagement was announced at the 60th birthday party of Amitabh Bachchan. The engagement, which was later called off, was aimed to be another stepping stone to strengthen the Kapoor-Bachchan bond after Shweta Bachchan married Raj Kapoor's grandson Nikhil Nanda. Later, Karisma married Delhi-based businessman Sunjay Kapur in 2003 at a high-profile wedding. Like their wedding, their divorce gained much public attention as the former couple hurled allegations at each other. As per Mumbai Mirror reports, Sunjay had commented how she had been with him only for his money and had married him "in a calculated and clinical manner". He also made claims about how he was the rebound relationship after her and Abhishek Bachchan's breakup, and how she was not a suitable wife and mother. He had filed a petition that labelled Karisma as the reason behind their breakup. He also cited that the actress was "cruel" and would not let their children, Samaira and Kiaan, meet up with him and his family. At the time, the actress's lawyer had shared a statement against all the allegations that had been made by Sunjay. They had stated that "We will tell the court that he is causing great harm to the children's welfare by spreading false stories. We don't want a trial by media." During the divorce proceedings, the courts gave custody of the children to Karisma and granted visitation rights to Sunjay. After divorce from Karisma Kapoor, Sunjay married Priya Sachdev in 2017. Priya already had a daughter from her previous marriage. The couple later had a kid themselves, a boy named Azarius. In A Nutshell Karisma Kapoor and Sunjay Kapur's divorce gained much public attention as the late businessman accused Karisma of marrying him for "money, fame" and, moreover as a rebound option after the Bachchan break-up.
