The weapon and ammunition were allegedly seized from accused Zeeshan Ali's house in Noida, they said, adding that an ATS team, acting on information revealed by him, had taken him to his residence in Noida.
The weapon and ammunition were allegedly seized from accused Zeeshan Ali's house in Noida, they said, adding that an ATS team, acting on information revealed by him, had taken him to his residence in Noida.
On July 22, the Gujarat ATS had apprehended four persons — Fardin Sheikh, Saifulla Qureshi, Mohammad Faiq and Zeeshan Ali — for their involvement in advancing the agenda of the AQIS through social media platforms by allegedly undertaking Ghazwa-e-Hind, provoking India's Muslim community to engage in violent acts against non-Muslims, advocating armed revolt against the elected government, and pushing for an Islamic Sharia-based regime.
Legal action was initiated under Sections 13, 18, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and Sections 113, 152, 196, and 61 of the BNS.
Then on July 27, Shama Parveen, the alleged key accused of this module, was arrested from Karnataka's Bengaluru.
On Tuesday, a statement from the ATS said, 'During preliminary verification of information related to the said offense, surveillance of social media accounts had revealed that the accused Zeeshan Ali is in possession of a semi-automatic pistol. Based on the facts revealed during the intensive interrogation of the accused Zeeshan Ali by the Investigating Officer, DySP Virjeetsinh Parmar and his team, accused voluntarily disclosed the facts that he was indeed in possession of an illegal semi-automatic pistol.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Crypto traders under I-T lens for violations
Hyderabad: Income tax department's investigation wing has uncovered large-scale tax evasion involving cryptocurrency traders across the country. An ongoing probe by I-T department's Hyderabad unit found that several clients who traded in virtual digital assets (VDAs) through platforms like ZebPay failed to pay taxes on profits earned, violating Section 115BBH of the Income Tax Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now I-T investigators revealed that many traders used automated bots programmed to perform arbitrage trading in Tether (USDT). Tether is one of the top stablecoins. These bots scanned multiple exchanges in real-time, buying Tether at a lower price on one exchange and selling it immediately at a higher price on another. The difference between buy and sell prices, even after accounting for transaction costs, allowed the traders to make consistent profits. Tether, pegged to the US dollar, is designed to maintain a 1:1 value ratio with the currency. Traders capitalised on minor variations in USDT prices across platforms due to differences in liquidity or price update delays. The use of these cryptocurrency bots is not illegal per se, but the income earned through these trades is taxable under Section 115BBH of the Act. According to sources in the I-T department, traders involved in such activities did not declare profits made from these automated trades. Instead, they attempted to offset gains by discounting the losses. This practice is specifically prohibited under provisions of Section 115BBH, which governs taxation on income from virtual digital assets. Notices are now being prepared to be issued to these individuals, sources said. Officials stated that the violation lies in the wrongful claim of deductions and losses while computing income from crypto transfers, which are not permissible under the law. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Section 115BBH, introduced through the Finance Act, 2022, and effective from April 1, 2023, outlines the tax treatment of income from VDAs such as cryptocurrencies. The section of the I-T Act imposes a flat 30% tax on gains from such transfers regardless of slabs. The key provision in this section states that no deductions other than the cost of acquisition are allowed. This means that operational costs, transaction fees, or any other expenditures cannot be deducted from the income earned through crypto trades. Crypto traders cannot set off losses from crypto transactions against any other income, nor can they carry forward these losses to future years. The section applies to all types of transfers of VDAs, whether the assets are classified as capital assets or not.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
'Shields minors': Centre Defends Statutory Age Of 18 Years For Consent In Top Court
New Delhi: The Centre has defended in the Supreme Court the statutory age of consent of 18 years, saying the decision was a "deliberate, well-considered, and coherent" policy choice aimed at shielding minors from sexual exploitation. The Centre, in its written submissions through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, argued diluting the age of consent or introducing exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance would be not only legally unsound but also dangerous. The government said it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit a child's emotional dependence or silence. The Centre further said the existing statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly enforced. "Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law, and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).' Moreover, the Centre argued that the discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and must not be read into the statute as a general exception or a diluted standard. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent,' it said. Lowering the age of consent, the Centre said, would open the "floodgates" to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. The case before the top court raises the point of age in adolescent relationships. 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen (18) years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered, and coherent statutory policy,' the Centre said. The law does not treat the age limit as arbitrary and rather, it reflects a constitutional and legislative recognition of a minor's vulnerability, especially in a socio-economic context marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances, it added. A child's inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member, it said, adding in such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing'. The existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them, it said. 'The Supreme Court along with high courts across the country have always maintained the sanctity of legal age of consent as 18 years of age. This statutory yardstick has been upheld on numerous occasions, keeping in view the legislative intent and the pre-eminent constitutional mandate of protecting young children,' it said. Earlier, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising had urged the bench to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the case, then said the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
"Will Vacate Official Residence On Time Post Retirement": Chief Justice BR Gavai
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Thursday said due to time constraints he would not be able to find a suitable house by the time he retires in November and "for sure vacate" his official residence within the time period allowed under the rules. Bidding farewell to outgoing Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who is set to superannuate on August 9, the CJI at an event organised by Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) called him a "warm person" who dedicated his career to the judiciary. Speaking to an audience comprising judges of the top court and high court aside from senior lawyers and their family members the CJI said Justice Dhulia would vacate his official residence, a day after his retirement. "We will always remember his contribution to the judiciary. After retirement, he is going to be in Delhi, and he'll be one of the judges who will be vacating the house immediately. On the next day of his retirement," the CJI said. Interestingly, a month ago in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Centre to vacate the official residence of the Chief Justice of India at Krishna Menon Marg in Delhi, noting former CJI DY Chandrachud had stayed beyond the permissible period. Earlier in August, however, Justice Chandrachud vacated the official residence of the head of the judiciary. Referring to his and Justice Dhulia's situation, the CJI said, "As a matter of fact, that's a rarity. I wish I would also be in a position to do it till November 24. I won't find time to find a suitable house, but I can assure you that whatever time is permissible as per the rules, I'll be shifting before that. But Justice Dhulia has set a very good example. I am sure that many of us can emulate him." Justice Dhulia was a part of numerous judgements in the apex court, including the hijab ban case from Karnataka in which he dissented with the majority view and held there should be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. When speakers lauded the verdict, Justice Dhulia said, "Let me tell you I was not defending the Hijab. What I was defending was the choice of women to wear Hijab. If I have a judicial philosophy, then I can only say that my judicial philosophy is everything is around the human being. Everything which is for the benefit of a human being is my judicial philosophy." The outgoing judge lauded the contributions of advocates-on-record and asked them to gear up for "their importance rises with the rise in litigation" and indicated that he would speak more on Friday, his last working day. In April, a bench headed by Justice Dhulia ruled Urdu language was born in this land and described it as the finest specimen of "Ganga Jamuni tahzeeb". The bench said considering it a language of Muslims was a "pitiable digression" from reality and unity in diversity. Justice Dhulia was born on August 10, 1960 and completed schooling in Dehradun, Allahabad and Lucknow. He was elevated as a permanent Judge of Uttarakhand High Court on November 1, 2008 and took oath as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court on January 10, 2021 before being elevated to the top court on May 9, 2022. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK
