Latest news with #CBI
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Eshwar Khandre recommends suspension of IFS officer
Bengaluru: A case has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking permission to denotify HMT forest land worth over Rs 14,000 crore, and action has been recommended against a retired IAS, IFS and two sitting IFS officers, Forest, Ecology and Environment Minister Eshwar B Khandre said. Speaking to reporters who met him in Bengaluru on Friday, he said that the land in the possession of HMT has not been converted to non-forest purposes. 'Therefore, according to several judgments given by the Supreme Court and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, it remains a forest even today. However, this land is alienated, real estate companies have built hundreds of flats. Shooting of serials and films is going on. The land is being used for commercial purposes. How this was allowed is questionable', he said. Responding to a journalist's question about why no action has been taken even after seven months of giving notice to officials in the case of IA for denotification of HMT forest land without the permission of the cabinet, the minister said that the forest land in the possession of HMT is the property of 7 crore Kannadigas, which a few officials did not even bring to the attention of the then Forest Minister and applied for denotification without seeking the prior permission of the cabinet. He said that notices have been issued to four officials, including two retired and two serving ones, and that he has recommended action to the Chief Minister. Additional Chief Principal Conservator of Forests R Gokul has written a letter to the CBI seeking protection, saying that he is being victimised because he got the ruling party MLAs punished in the Belikeri case. Responding to a journalist's question whether the government is victimising officials, Khandre said that this is a completely false allegation made against the government. 'On September 24, 2024, I sent a written note to the Additional Chief Secretary, asking for a show cause notice to the officers who had issued IA without the prior approval of the Cabinet and asked them to take action' the Minister said. 'A month after the notice was given, the verdict was delivered in October 2024. R. Gokul wrote a letter to the CBI to cover up his mistake, making false allegations against the government, which could also be considered misconduct by the officer or a threat tactic', he said. He personally visited the HMT forest land area, where there is still 280 acres of plantation. However, the IA was submitted by giving false information to the Supreme Court that the said land has lost its forest status. The officer writing the letter to the CBI in his defence questioned why he did not write a letter to the Chief Minister saying that there is forest on the HMT land. It cannot be submitted as an IA because it has lost its forest status. A high-level committee headed by the Chief Secretary was formed in 2015 to discuss and recommend to the government the forest land held by other institutions in Bengaluru. Without even bringing it to the attention of that committee, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court on June 20, 2020, seeking permission for denotification without the permission of the Cabinet. In just 25 days, i.e. on 15 July 2020, a high-level meeting was held to decide the issue 'I have asked the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment and Ecology Department to submit a proposal for denotification of such forest areas after seeking the opinion of the Advocate General regarding the sanction of areas to various/government institutions before 1980 for a decision.' However, he said that ex-post facto permission was not obtained for this. Hence, notices were issued to four officers. He said that he has now submitted a file to the Chief Minister to suspend Gokul and conduct an inquiry, conduct a departmental inquiry against another officer and take action against a retired IAS officer and an IFS officer as per the rules. As soon as this matter came to his notice, an application was filed in the Supreme Court to withdraw the IA. The Cabinet's permission has also been obtained to withdraw the IA, said Eshwar Khandre. The government's intention is to build another huge park in North Bengaluru on the forest land in the possession of HMT. 'Our goal is to save breathing space for the next generation' Eshwar Khandre said and added that he had made this point clear even before filing an application in the Supreme Court to withdraw the IA.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Why is Pollachi sexual assault verdict unique?
The story so far: On May 13, 2025, a Mahila Court in Coimbatore convicted nine men from Pollachi under Section 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the maximum punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of their life. The court also awarded a compensation of ₹85 lakh to seven victims, including those who had been subjected to sexual assault repeatedly pursuant a conspiracy hatched by the convicts between October 2016 and February 2019. According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the modus operandi of the convicts was to befriend women before abducting and subjecting them to sexual assault. The prosecution had also charged the gang of recording the sexual acts on video and using those clips to threaten and rape the women repeatedly on different occasions. The 658-page judgement delivered by sessions judge R. Nandhini Devi highlights the challenges faced by the prosecution in proving its case in order to secure a conviction. Did Victim 'A' exaggerate the offence committed against her? Victim 'A', a 19-year-old college girl, was the last victim of the convicts before they got arrested in 2019. However, she turned out to be the first to lodge a police complaint on February 24, 2019 leading to the unearthing of their antecedents. According to the prosecution, A1 (28-year-old Rishwanth alias N. Sabarirajan, a civil engineer by profession) had pretended to have fallen in love with the victim, taken her to a place near a poultry farm in a car and abused her sexually by removing her upper garments on February 12, 2019. He also surreptitiously shot half naked pictures of the victim with a mobile phone and used them to threaten her. When she confided about it to her family members after a few days, her elder brother and his friends tracked down the accused as well as his accomplices and found many videos of other women having been subjected to sexual assault by the gang. Therefore, the family decided to lodge a complaint after 12 days since the victim was abused. When victim 'A' deposed before the trial court after six years, she levelled the charge of rape too against A1. However, the CBI Special Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that such an exaggerated claim made by the victim for the first time before the trial court, and not made before any of the four investigating officers or the two judicial magistrates during the course of investigation, need not be given credence. After recording his submission, the court said, it was quite possible that the victim did not want the accused to escape from punishment or imposed with lesser punishment and therefore, she might have chosen to make an exaggerated allegation. Stating that the improved version of the victim could certainly not be accepted by the court, the trial judge said, at the same time, the entire testimony of the victim could not be discarded just because of the exaggerated portion. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has no application in Indian courts, she said. 'There is a marked difference between exaggerated version and false version,' the judge observed and added that it was the duty of the court to sift the chaff from the grain in case of exaggerations or contradictions. Ultimately, the trial court convicted A1 for the charge of outraging the modesty of the victim but acquitted A2 (30-year-old financier K. Thirunavukkarasu) and A5 (28-year-old Mani alias R. Manivannan whose car was used for the crime) from the charges levelled against them for having facilitated the offence against this victim. What was the goof up in the charge sheets related to Victim B? Victim 'B' was also a final year college student. She had been brutally gang raped by A1, A2, A3 (29-year-old M. Sathish), A4 (26-year-old T. Vasanthakumar) and A7 (29-year-old Haron alias T. Haronimus Paul) on April 24, 2018 despite being informed that she was menstruating at that point of time. The first charge sheet filed by CBI Inspector Vijayavaishnavi had mentioned the incident to have taken place in April 2018 but the supplementary charge sheet filed by Inspector Pachayammal had mentioned it as November 2018. The SPP told the court the victim had specifically mentioned the occurrence to have taken place only in November 2018 to the second investigating officer but had not mentioned any specific date or month to the first investigating officer. Nevertheless, it was not known as to how the first investigating officer had mentioned the month as April 2018 in the first charge sheet. However, relying upon the forensic report regarding the video shot during the gang rape, the trial court concluded that the offence had taken place only in April and not November 2018. It also stated that the victim might have had confusion in recalling the exact month since semester examinations generally take place during April as well as November. The judge also held that the prosecution had failed to prove the use of a black colour car for abducting the victim since it had been purchased by A1 only on August 11, 2018. Nevertheless, the judge convicted all the five accused for gang rape on the basis of the victim's oral testimony corroborated by the electronic evidence. Why SC/ST Act was not invoked with respect to Victims 'C' and 'E'? According to the prosecution, Victim 'C' was gang raped by A2, A5 and A6 in September 2018 and Victim 'E', a MBA final year student, was raped by A1 and subjected to criminal intimidation by A2 and A5. Since both the victims belonged to a Scheduled Caste, the defence counsel contended that the entire prosecution launched against them would fall to the ground. The counsel pointed out that only an officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above should investigate cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 and since only officers in the rank of Inspector had investigated the present case, all the charges against the accused must be eschewed. However, rejecting their argument, the trial judge held that the SC/ST Act need not be invoked merely because the victims happened to be from a Scheduled Caste unless there was evidence to prove that the offence had been committed due to caste hatred. How did A6 get convicted for raping Victims 'D' & 'H' though he was not involved in any sexual act? The trial court found A2, A3 and A5 to have subjected Victim 'D', a second year college student, to gang rape in October 2018. A6 had waited outside when the crime was committed and then dropped the victim in a car at Pollachi bus stand. Similarly, when eight of the nine accused mercilessly raped Victim 'H', a teacher at a private school, one after the other, A6 alone had refused to indulge in any sexual act despite being asked to do so by A5. Nevertheless, the trial court convicted A6 too for the charge of gang rape of both the victims since he was a part of the gang. Similarly, the court convicted A2 to A4 too for the charge of gang rape of Victim 'G', a beauty parlour employee, though the sexual act against her had been committed only by A1. The trial judge pointed out that the Supreme Court in its latest judgement delivered on May 2, 2025 in Raju alias Umakant versus State of Madhya Pradesh had held that it was not necessary for all the persons in a gang to have indulged in overt sexual acts to be convicted for gang rape. It was sufficient even if one of them had committed the act in pursuance of the common intention among the gang members. Why didn't Victim 'F' testify in court leading to acquittal of accused? The prosecution's case was that the nine accused had sexually assaulted as many as eight victims in total. However, one of them (Victim F) did not come forward to testify before the court. According to the prosecution, Victim 'F' was abducted and gang raped by A1, A2, A3, and A7. The victim had written a letter to the trial court expressing her inability to depose before the court due to a situation prevailing in her matrimonial home and the continuous medical treatment required for her new born baby. Therefore, left with no option, the CBI had dispensed with her examination before the court. The court acquitted all four accused from the charge of raping her but held that no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution and the CBI could not be found to have deliberately withheld the witness especially when it could not convince her to testify despite best efforts. How did the court deal with defence arguments? The defence raised many issues such as non production of the mobile phones of the victims, non collection of CCTV footage to prove abduction from public places, prosecution's failure to secure the clothes worn by the victims at the time of the crime, the non inclination of the victims to undergo medical examination and so on to make a dent in the prosecution case. However, the trial judge rejected all such contentions by observing that in sexual offence cases, the oral evidence of the victims alone was sufficient to convict the accused if such evidence inspires the confidence of the court. 'Our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic... Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the court of justice,' the judge observed.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
CBI court refuses bail to gangster Chhota Rajan in 2005 arms seizure case
MUMBAI: A special court designated under the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday rejected the bail plea of gangster Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje, alias Chhota Rajan, in connection with a 2005 case involving a major arms seizure at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT). The court, in its order dated May 28, noted that the trial was nearing completion and the case was of a serious nature. 'All important witnesses have been examined, and the trial is likely to conclude within a few months,' said special judge A M Patil while denying the bail plea. The case dates back to May 21, 2005, when Mumbai police recovered a cache of firearms and ammunition concealed in drums filled with grease at a logistics facility near JNPT. The raid was triggered by the arrest of one Mukund Patel, who was found in possession of a loaded revolver at a bar near Kandivali West railway station. During interrogation, Patel allegedly disclosed that Rajan's aide, Bharat Nepali, had facilitated the smuggling of weapons into the city. Acting on this information, the Mumbai Crime Branch conducted a search at Trans India Logistic Park, recovering nine packets containing 34 revolvers, three pistols, one silencer, and 1,283 live cartridges. Following the seizure, police invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), citing the involvement of an organised crime syndicate. The CBI took over the investigation in 2015, after Rajan was extradited to India. In his bail application, Rajan contended that there was no direct evidence linking him to the arms haul and claimed he had been falsely implicated. His counsel argued that he has been in judicial custody since October 2015, and the delay in concluding the trial infringed on his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The defence also questioned the admissibility of call records purportedly linking Rajan to the other accused, arguing that the sanction to invoke MCOCA was vague and procedurally flawed. However, the prosecution strongly opposed the plea. The special public prosecutor maintained that the charge sheet contained sufficient evidence tying Rajan to the smuggling operation. It was also submitted that a police officer had identified Rajan's voice in an intercepted conversation and cautioned that given his history of absconding, he posed a flight risk if granted bail. Upholding the prosecution's arguments, the court ruled that Rajan's continued detention was justified and that the cited legal precedents in the defence's argument were not applicable at the current stage of the trial.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
CBI arrests ED dy director in ‘bribery' case
Bhubaneswar: The CBI on Friday arrested Chintan Raghuvanshi, deputy director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Bhubaneswar, and another middleman Bhakti Binod Behera for allegedly demanding bribe from a miner for sparing him in a money laundering case. Even though CBI FIR stated Raghuvanshi's 'direct role' is being investigated, agency sources said they have found prima facie evidence against him. According to a complaint by businessman Rohit Kumar Rout with the CBI on May 28, the ED had initiated a money laundering case against him in 2020 concerning alleged financial discrepancies in his stone crusher operations in Dhenkanal district. On Jan 8 this year, the ED conducted searches at his residence and office in Bhubaneswar. Subsequently, he received a summons in March and was questioned at the ED office. Rout alleged that Raghuvanshi, a 2013 batch IRS officer, through his intermediary Behera, demanded Rs 5 crore to give him a clean chit in the case. The alleged deal also included assurances against his arrest and attachment of properties, including his hospital. The amount was subsequently brought down to Rs 2 crore, Rout stated in his complaint. Behera told Rout to deliver the initial payment of Rs 50 lakh at 11am on Thursday. "CBI sub-inspector Ayan Mishra verified the complaint. The verification confirmed Bhakti's (Behera) instructions to Rout regarding the Rs 50 lakh initial payment towards the total Rs 2 crore bribe demand," CBI's FIR stated. According to sources, while the deal was being finalised inside a building in Saheed Nagar area on Thursday evening, CBI personnel intervened. CBI sources said Rout had taken Rs 20 lakh as part payment. Raghuvanshi and Behera were taken to the CBI office where they were detained and faced questioning. "Both of them were arrested on Friday. They were remanded in judicial custody following rejection of their bail pleas," a CBI source said. "As direct role of Chintan Raghuvanshi could not be verified at this stage, it was decided to proceed the case only against Behera, and to look into Raghuvanshi's role during investigation. Hence, a regular case is registered against Bhakti," the FIR added.
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Expedite probe into procurement of mosquito nets: HC to CBI
Madurai: Madras high court recently directed the CBI to expedite investigation into an alleged scam committed by Hindustan Insecticides Limited (HIL), a public sector company, in the procurement of Long Lasting Insecticidal Nets (LLINs) to the Jharkhand govt and Central Medical Survey Services Society (CMSS), New Delhi in 2022. The court was hearing the petition filed by A R Malaiyappasamy, president of the Karur HDPE Filament and Bednets Manufacturers Welfare Association. According to the petitioner, HIL, New Delhi, a public sector company, had obtained a contract from the Jharkhand govt and CMSS in New Delhi, for supply of mosquito nets for public use. While CMSS procured more than 40 million LLINs, the Jharkhand govt had floated a tender in 2022 for procurement of 48,000 LLINs. The petitioner alleged that the HIL had procured LLINs from shell companies at a low cost and supplied it at a higher cost. Alleging that a fraud had been committed by HIL, the petitioner association had lodged a complaint to the CBI in March 2023. The petitioner had filed the present petition in 2024 seeking a direction to the CBI to expedite inquiry into the complaint. Earlier, the court had directed the CBI to ascertain as to whether the shell companies through which, HIL said to have procured the nets, are having any manufacturing facilities to manufacture LLINs and regarding the actual cost of production and the cost which has been shown by HIL as procurement cost. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Descubra o valor de qualquer imóvel — basta digitar o endereço! Valor da casa | Anúncios de pesquisa Saiba Mais Undo Pursuant to the earlier order, the CBI submitted an interim report stating that LLINs were purchased at the lower cost from a shell company which was given purchase orders for 9.31 lakh LLINs. However, the shell company had the capacity to manufacture 75,000 nets per month, as per the report of HIL itself. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the interim report submitted by the CBI reveals that there are certain prima facie materials available in the complaint of the petitioner and therefore, it needs to be prosecuted. Hence, the judge directed the CBI to proceed with the investigation and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The petition was disposed of.
