Kalamna Police Nab 55-Year-Old With Nearly 2kg Ganja
The operation took place between on July 28, after the police received reliable information about illegal drug possession. A team from Kalamna police station, led by senior officers, conducted a house search in the presence of a panch at Shrivastava's residence located near Atta Chakki in Om Nagar.
During the search, the cops discovered 1.94kg ganja hidden in a bag placed under a cupboard. A weighing scale and other paraphernalia suspected to be used for packaging and distribution were also recovered.
The total value of the seized items was estimated at Rs51,000.
Preliminary investigation suggests that Shrivastava was in possession of the ganja for personal profit through illegal sale. He was booked under relevant sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for illegal possession and intent to distribute a commercial quantity of banned substances.
Shrivastava was taken into custody immediately after the seizure. Police officials confirmed that further probe is on to trace the source of the ganja and identify potential buyers or networks linked to the accused.
This action comes as part of an intensified crackdown on narcotics-related offences across city limits, with the police reiterating their commitment to rooting out drug-related crimes in the region.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Malegaon blast case: Bomb could have been placed later on motorbike, says judge
MUMBAI: Thursday's judgment in the 2008 Malegaon blast case , in which all seven accused were acquitted, also focused on the failure to establish that a bomb was fitted inside a motorcycle. Based on the evidence, the judge said a bomb could have been placed later on the bike. Refuting the prosecution's case, the judge also noted that it could not be proved that the bike on which the bomb was allegedly fitted belonged to Thakur, that RDX was procured by Lt Col Prasad Purohit from Kashmir, or that he assembled the bomb. The judge also found sanction orders granted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to be defective and invalid, issued without "application of judicial mind". The NIA judge said the conspiracy in Malegaon blast case remained unproven due to absence of evidence and witnesses who would testify that a series of meetings were held by the organisation named Abhinav Bharat to plan the attack. ATS probes focused on the alleged conspiracy by a group intent on avenging perceived atrocities against Hindus. The crux of prosecution's case was that the plot revealed an effort to strike terror by orchestrating a bomb blast in Malegaon, a Muslim-dominated area. However, the judge said to show that the main elements of the conspiracy were finalised at Faridabad and Bhopal, the prosecution was not supported by "material witnesses" and the testimony of those who did was not "reliable and acceptable... by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo other meetings which were held at Kolkata, Indore, Ujjain, Nashik and Pune, no acceptable evidence is present on these on record... witnesses have retracted from their earlier statements given to ATS. Therefore, neither conspiracy is proved nor meetings are proved," the judge said. While it was alleged that that accused Ajay Rahirkar, acting as treasurer of Abhinav Bharat, collected donations and distributed funds to Lt Col Prasad Purohit, who was a trustee, as well as to Sudhakar Dhar Diwedi and Major Ramesh Upadhyay (Retd), Purohit used these funds for personal expenses, including house construction and paying for LIC policies. "But there was no evidence that the said amount was used for terrorist activities," the judge said. The retraction by 39 of 323 prosecution witnesses of statements given to ATS considerably weakened the case. "Testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions," the judge said. Referring to procedural shortcomings, the judge was critical of the handling of the crime scene. It was revealed that no rough sketch map was drawn, and the spot was not immediately barricaded, leading to contamination. The judge pointed out that a mob gathered at the spot after the blast, pelted stones, vandalised cars, caused damage to a police chowki, and snatched the firearms of police officers. He said a counterattack by police involved lathicharge, firing, and use of grenades. Despite the presence of a fingerprint expert, no prints, DNA samples, or other critical data were collected at the spot. The judge said since the spot was contaminated, analysis of articles found could not be considered 100% accurate anyway. Even material seized such as mobiles and laptops were not sealed as per due process. The judgment also raised concerns about procedures adopted for collecting voice samples and intercepting mobile communication. The judge observed that interceptions were not authorised in the specific period, and permissions were obtained belatedly. This rendered the intercepted data unusable as evidence. It was also noted that "narco analysis was carried out of the accused by ATS but not supported by documents and it was not filed on record". The judgment even raised concerns about planting of evidence and tampering of material. It has called for an inquiry into the actions of ATS officer Shekhar Bagade, whose presence at an accused's house was seen to be under suspicious circumstances. "House search of accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi tilt towards planting (of RDX) in the light of evidence of record. There was no conscious possession over the house, and articles, found at the relevant time," the judge said. Chaturvedi was accused of assembling the bomb at his home, a claim he denied. The judge pointed out that despite allegations that Purohit had brought RDX from Kashmir, no evidence was presented to show its storage at his house or its use in assembling the bomb. Interestingly, NIA's supplementary chargesheet in May 2016 had accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame Purohit and, notably, gave a clean chit to Pragya Thakur and others, citing insufficient evidence. Despite NIA's stance, the special court, on Dec 27, 2017, ruled that seven accused, including Thakur and Purohit, would face trial under UAPA, though charges under MCOCA were dropped. In his concluding remarks Thursday, the judge expressed awareness of "agony, frustration and trauma caused to society at large, more particularly to the family of victims, by the fact that a crime of this nature has gone unpunished". "However law does not permit the court to convict the accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion," the judge said. As per the judgment, a compensation of Rs 2 lakh is to be paid to families of those who died in the blast, while the 95 injured will receive Rs 50,000 each. The case, meanwhile, will continue against two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra & Sandeep Dange. Five different judges have so far presided over proceedings. The tenure of the current judge, A K Lahoti, was recently extended by Bombay high court till Aug 31, 2025 to ensure he could deliver the verdict.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Told to pay water connection bills, man loses Rs 1.3L to fraudsters posing as MCG officers
Gurgaon: A 72-year-old city resident lost Rs 1.3 lakh to cyber fraudsters who posed as MCG officials and asked him to pay his pending water bill. When the victim, a resident of Palam Vihar, told them that he had already paid the bills through his credit card, the fraudsters forced him to pay again through the same card if he wanted his water connection to continue. The victim was asked to pay Rs 10 initially, following which Rs 1.3 lakh got deducted from his credit card. In his complaint at cybercrime west police station, the victim, Dr Birender Kumar Jawa, said that on June 27, he received a call from the number 91-8653043084. The caller claimed to be an MCG official and said the victim's water bill hadn't been cleared. You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon "I told him I had already paid the bill through my credit card and had the receipt. But he insisted that if I didn't pay again that day, my water supply would be disconnected. He asked me to make a Rs10 payment using the same card. I tried, but the transaction failed," said Dr Jawa. Despite not sharing any OTP, two transactions—of Rs1 lakh and Rs30,000—were made from his account. After realising the fraud, the victim contacted the cybercrime helpline. His complaint was forwarded to the cybercrime west police station, where a case was registered under sections 318(4) (cheating) and 319 (cheating by personation) of BNS. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like New Container Houses Indonesia (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo A police officer said teams are working to trace the suspects using both technical and human intelligence. "It's surprising how even well-educated people are falling victim to these scams. The caller tricked the victim into thinking it was about KYC verification, even though he had already paid his bill," a police official said. In June, MCG had issued an advisory warning residents against such frauds. Scammers were reportedly using phone number 91-9022138476 to send fake WhatsApp messages and calls, pressuring people to pay their water bills. MCG clarified that it does not collect payments via calls or messages and urged residents to use only official channels. "We've been alerting residents and have also lodged complaints with cyber police for FIRs," said a senior MCG officer.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Malegaon blast case: UAPA sanctions invalid, terror charge can't stick, rules court
MUMBAI: Special trial judge A K Lahoti, in a key finding that led to the collapse of the Malegaon blast case , held that the prior sanction under the anti-terror law UAPA against the accused was "invalid." It was issued without judicious application of mind, and the mandatory twin test safeguard required by law was not scrupulously followed, the court said. The judge analysed Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which outlines procedural safeguards. Section 45(1) requires valid sanction from the Centre or state govt to prosecute any terror offence under the Act. Section 45(2) mandates an independent review of the evidence by an authority appointed by the govt. Lt Col Prasad Purohit, through his counsel Shrikant Shivade (who passed away in 2022) and later advocate Viral Babar, had consistently argued that the UAPA sanction was flawed. Other accused also challenged the validity of the Jan 2009 sanction and another issued in 2011 by the additional chief secretary (home). The trial court held both sanctions to be "defective." While the prosecution claimed it had followed the twin test, the court said there was no evidence it was done as mandated under Section 45(2). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Stylish New Mobility Scooters Available for Seniors (Prices May Surprise You) Mobility Scooter | Search Ads Search Now Undo "The sanction is not a curable defect. So, all the provisions of UAPA will not be invoked," the judge ruled. Advocates Ranjeet Sangle (for Sudhakar Dwivedi) and J P Mishra (for Sadhvi Pragya Singh) also argued that the first sanction bypassed the statutory safeguard under Section 45(2), and that the absence of such review invalidated the trial court's cognisance of UAPA charges. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal had contended that the sanction's validity could only be decided during the trial, a view echoed by the Supreme Court in 2018. However, the special judge reviewed the sanctioning procedure and found that UAPA charges could not be sustained due to the faulty sanction. Shivade had also pointed out that the authority did not comply with the mandatory safeguard of an additional review committee required under law since Dec 31, 2008. The prosecution argued that since the crime occurred in Sept 2008, the earlier 2004 provision-without the second review-was applicable. But the Supreme Court clarified in 2023 that the UAPA's procedural safeguards during sanction are mandatory.
