Karnataka High Court stays mandatory installation of smart meters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Court sends Delhi cop to jail for not paying Rs 10,000 against non-bailable warrant
A court here on Tuesday sent a sub-inspector to jail for not paying Rs 10,000 as the amount of a bailable warrant issued against him. Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar was hearing an application for the cancellation of a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against an investigating officer (IO), Sub-Inspector Sandeep Rawal. A bailable warrant of Rs 10,000 was issued against the IO for not being present during a POCSO case, which was at the stage of prosecution evidence. Noting that he was not present again on Tuesday, the SI was served an NBW. The judge said, 'At this stage, the applicant (Rawal) submits that today he has gone to Saket court to file a supplementary charge-sheet in a case. Hence, he requests to cancel the NBW.' The judge said that despite being served a bailable warrant, Rawal had gone to another court, and his conduct showed that 'he had no regard for the process of the court.' So there were insufficient grounds to cancel the NBW, and it could only be cancelled, subject to a payment of the bailable warrant's amount of Rs 10,000. The IO agreed to pay the amount and left the court to withdraw money from an ATM. When the court resumed at 2.50 pm, Rawal said he was not ready to pay the amount, to which the judge said, 'Despite taking time from the court to pay the amount of the bailable warrant, the applicant or IO has not paid the amount. He has wasted the precious time of the court. Hence, applicant be taken into custody and sent to judicial custody.' The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned deputy commissioner of police for 'necessary information.'
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC quashes notice issued by magistrate to HDFC Bank CEO in criminal defamation complaint
The Bombay High Court earlier this month quashed a notice issued to HDFC Bank and its Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan by the magistrate court in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (LKMM Trust), which oversees the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra (West). The HC held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Girgaon had issued notice to Jagdishan in contravention of procedure laid down under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The magistrate on the same day issued notice to the Bank, Jagdishan and others. The Trust, in its criminal complaint had alleged that the Bank and Jagdishan had made 'malicious and derogatory' statements against the Trust and its permanent trustee Prashant Mehta. Aggrieved by the notice issued in criminal defamation complaint, Jagdishan approached the HC. Senior advocates Ravi Kadam and Sudeep Pasbola for Jagdishan argued that the magistrate had issued the notice on the same day the complaint was filed and order to issue notice was made without recording complainant's sworn verification, which was mandated as per the law. On the other hand, senior advocate Aabad Ponda for the Trust argued that the magistrate was entitled to issue notice before taking cognisance of the case. The Trust argued that section 223 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provided that the court has to hear the accused before taking cognisance of the complaint, which the court rejected and said the same was incorrect if the main provision and the proviso of the section were considered together. Justice Shriram M Modak emphasised that verification of complainant and witnesses after filing of private complaint was necessary and the proposed accused was required to be heard. 'If we consider the chronology, it shows that after filing of complaint there has to be verification of the complainant and witnesses and when prior to decision on taking cognizance is taken, the accused needs to be heard. Hearing the accused cannot be interpreted prior to recording the verification and the statement of witnesses if any,' Justice Modak observed. 'There is a purpose of recording the verification. It gives an opportunity to the Magistrate to ascertain whether to proceed further or not, the judge added and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of notice to proposed accused Jagdishan. The court clarified that the magistrate was at liberty to proceed with the matter by recording the verification of the Complainant and all witnesses, if any and then pass the appropriate order. The Trust has also filed a defamation suit in Bombay HC against the HDFC Bank and Jagdishan seeking damages of Rs. 1,000 crore and the same is pending before the court. Meanwhile, Jagdishan had filed a criminal writ petition challenging FIR registered against him on a complaint filed by the Trust, accusing him of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to help a group consisting of one Chetan Mehta and other erstwhile trustees to retain alleged illegal control over the trust. The next hearing on Jagdishan's writ plea is scheduled on August 20.
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
Govt to ban money-based online gaming, bill likely in Parliament on Wednesday
New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) The Promotion and regulation of online gaming Bill, cleared by Union Cabinet on Tuesday, prohibits online money gaming or its ads, and prescribes imprisonment or fine, or both, for those offering or advertising them, as it seeks to differentiate such games from eSports or online social games, according to a source. At the same time, the Bill calls for promotion of eSports and online social games, the source said, adding that it acknowledges that formal recognition of eSports will enable India to tune into global competitive gaming landscape, spur innovation, create opportunities for Indian startup ecosystem and make the country a global magnate for game development. The Bill proposes that any person offering online money gaming service in violation of the stipulated provisions will face imprisonment of up to three years or a fine that may extend to Rs 1 crore, or both. The provisions also stipulate imprisonment of up to two years and or a fine of up to Rs 50 lakh, or both, for those indulging in advertisements in contravention of rules. Also, those engaging in any transaction or authorisation of funds will be liable for up to three years imprisonment, or a fine up to Rs 1 crore or both, according to the source. Repeat offences for violation related to online money gaming attracts higher stringent jail term (3-5 years) as well as fine. The Bill, however, does not criminalise anyone playing online money games, to avoid any harassment. The idea is to treat them as victims, rather than perpetrators of crime, the source said, adding that the Bill cracks down on those promoting and abetting it. It prohibits banks, financial institutions from processing or transferring funds related to real-money online games. Sources said that the Bill aims to regulate online gaming by promoting online social games and eSport, while prohibiting online money gaming in larger public interest. They pointed out that although the gaming landscape in India has seen explosive growth, the regulatory environment has remained fragmented and grey. At the same time there have been rising concerns around addictive nature of online games, especially monetary incentives, as well as mental health ramifications. Moreover, there have been instances of individuals falling victim to financial losses on account of online money gaming, resulting in extreme outcomes like depression, even suicide. Online money gaming has also been leveraged as channels to facilitate money laundering, and other illicit activities. The Bill, on the one hand, seeks to promote and regulate eSports and online social games (say, the likes of Candy Crush), while clearly prohibiting online money gaming in India. The Cabinet cleared the Bill on Tuesday and it is expected to be tabled in Parliament on Wednesday. Notably, the Bill seeks to establish a statutory regulatory authority for oversight and accountability. It calls for registration, compliant mechanism for online gaming platforms. The regulatory authority will have the power to determine whether or not a particular online game is an online money game, after making due enquiries. The Bill defines online money game as an 'online game, irrespective of whether such game is based on skill, chance or both, played by a user by paying fees, depositing money or other stakes, in expectation of winning in return of money or other stake" but specifies that it does not include eSport. PTI MBI PRS HVA view comments First Published: 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. Loading comments...
