Jharsuguda teacher held for alleged sexual misconduct
The accused was taken into custody following a formal complaint by the survivors' parents.
He has been charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act and relevant sections of BNS.
According to police, the teacher allegedly engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the students during school hours. The incident came to light when the survivors informed their families, who reported the matter first to the block education officer (BEO).
"A preliminary inquiry was launched on Saturday after we received the complaint on Friday night," said district education officer Radhakant Gartia.
District child welfare committee chairperson Ashish Panda confirmed that the survivors' statements will be recorded before a magistrate. The court has ordered the teacher to be held in judicial custody while a departmental probe is underway. "We have requested reports from both the district education officer and the district child protection Officer," Panda added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Employers in Coimbatore directed to form internal committees to address workplace sexual harassment
The Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health, Coimbatore, has issued a statement urging all employers to comply with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Act is intended to protect women from sexual harassment at workplace and to establish mechanisms for addressing such complaints. According to the Act, establishments with 10 or more employees are required to constitute an Internal Committee (IC) to inquire into complaints of sexual harassment. Employers who fail to constitute the committee or follow the required procedures may face a penalty of up to ₹50,000. The Directorate has instructed all factories and construction sites in and around Coimbatore to immediately form Internal Committees and fully implement the provisions of the Act. Details of IC members and the complaint redressal procedures must be displayed prominently in locations accessible to all employees. The release, also refers to Government Order (Standing) No. 64, issued by the Department of Social Welfare and Women's Rights (SW3-2), which outlines the standard operating procedures to be followed by establishments. All employers have been directed to strictly adhere to these guidelines.
News18
39 minutes ago
- News18
Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC
Kochi, Jul 25 (PTI) The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that a debt created by a cash transaction of above Rs 20,000 in violation of the Income Tax Act is not a 'legally enforceable debt" unless there is a valid explanation for the same. Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the declaration while allowing a plea for setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused in a cheque dishonor case. The accused was sentenced to one year and imposed with a fine of Rs 9 lakh by a sessions court for the offence of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. In his appeal in the High Court against the sessions court decision, the accused claimed that as the amount of Rs 9 lakh given to him by the complainant was in cash, it was an illegal transaction according to the Income Tax laws. 'Therefore, a debt created by an illegal transaction cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt," the accused had claimed. Agreeing with the accused's contention, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that if a criminal court 'indirectly legalises such illegal transactions in violation of the IT Act" by treating them as a legally enforceable debt, it will be against the aim of the country to discourage cash transactions above Rs 20,000. The High Court said that discouraging cash transactions above Rs 20,000 was also 'a part of the 'digital India' dream of our country, which is propounded by our Prime Minister to save our economy and to curb a parallel economy in our country". 'If the debt arises through an illegal transaction, that debt cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt. If the court regularises such transactions, that will encourage illegal transactions by the citizens. Even black money will be converted into white money through the criminal courts," the High Court said. It further said that in such cases the accused should challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that 'the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability". In the instant case, the accused had rebutted the presumption by claiming that the complainant does not have the source to loan out Rs 9 lakh and therefore, the debt alleged to be due to him cannot be treated as a legally enforceable one, the HC said. It allowed the accused's revision petition and acquitted him by setting aside his conviction and sentence by the lower court. The High Court said if anybody pays an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the IT Act and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. 'If there is no valid explanation in tune with provisions of the IT Act, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions," the HC said. It also made it clear that its findings would be prospective in nature. PTI HMP HMP ROH view comments First Published: July 25, 2025, 18:00 IST 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.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Consensual sex between adolocents aged 16 to 18 years must not be treated as abuse: amicus curiae to SC
Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising has argued that consensual sexual acts by teenagers, aged between 16 and 18, in voluntary relationships cannot be classified as 'abuse' or prosecuted as a crime. The written submissions filed by Ms. Jaising in the apex court is part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena dating back to 2012. The amicus's brief has challenged the age of pegged at 18 years by the enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) to the extent that it works to criminalise 'consensual sexual activity between children between the age of 16-18'. 'The only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18 is not a form of 'abuse',' Ms. Jaising's submissions said. The senior advocate, who was India's first woman Additional Solicitor General of India, said the exemption for consensual sexual acts between individuals in this age group must be read into the POCSO Act and also Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and its corresponding provision, Section 63, of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Definition of 'child' She submitted that the word 'child' in Section 2(d) of POCSO should not include individuals aged between 16 and 18 who engage in consensual sexual activity. 'Without reading down the statutory age of consent set at 18, it is prayed that the Supreme Court read into the impugned provisions a 'close-in-age exception', applicable when both parties to the sexual act are adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 and the sexual act is consensual. Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' Ms. Jaising reasoned in her submissions prepared with the assistance of advocates Paras Nath Singh, S. Sherwani, Rohin Bhat and R. Sinha. 'No reason to increase age for consent to 18 years' The case in question contains a challenge against the increase of age of consent from 16 yeats to 18 years through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. 'The age of consent was static at 16 for 80 years. No rational reason has been indicated for the increase, nor is there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase. The BNS has also kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in the Criminal Law Amendment Act,' the amicus curiae submitted. She argued that the increase in the age of consent violated the right to autonomy of children between the ages of 16 and 18 who have the ability to give mature consent to sexual activity, having regard to the fact that they have attained puberty giving rise to sexual awareness. 'Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and the development of sexual relationships of choice. Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law,' the submissions contended.
