Latest news with #JJAct
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
More skeletons tumble out of Srushti centre's cupboard
Hyderabad: The Hyderabad Police have registered 8 more criminal cases against Dr. Athaluri Namrata, owner of Universal Srushti Fertility center and several of her associates, for their alleged involvement in an extensive illegal surrogacy and child trafficking racket. As many as 25 persons were arrested so far in the case. S Rashmi Perumal, DCP North Zone stated considering the gravity of the offence, with orders of a Hyderabad Police Commissioner these cases will be transferred to to the Central Crime Station (CCS) Special Investigation Team (SIT) for further investigation. According to Gopalapuram police, these individuals are accused of running an organized criminal network under the guise of fertility services, systematically exploiting vulnerable couples both emotionally and financially. Rashmi Perumal said that the initial FIR was filed on 27th July 2025 against Dr. Namratha and her associates for defrauding a couple with fake surrogacy claims. In the course of investigation, police have arrested 25 individuals including doctors, lab technicians, managers/supervisors, agents and birth parents of the trafficked babies, all of them connected with an illegal surrogacy and baby-selling racket operated under the guise of fertility treatments at the Universal Srushti Fertility Centre at both branches i.e., Secunderabad and Visakhapatnam. The DCP said that the Investigation into the initial complaint revealed a wider network of deceit, with multiple victims coming forward with similar allegations of cheating, organized medical fraud and child trafficking. 'Based on the complaints of the victims, 8 more cases have been registered at Gopalapuram Police Station in addition to first case U/s 61, 308(2), 316(2), 318(2), 335, 336, 340, 111 of BNS; sections 38, 39, 40 of Surrogacy (Regulation) act, 2021; sections 81, 87 of JJ Act,' said Rashmi Perumal. The police said in the case, the accused took Rs 22 lakh from the victim couple in guise of doing surrogacy and later a deceased child was shown to the couple as their child. It was revealed in investigation that an unconnected pregnant woman had delivered the child which later died due to health complications. In another case, sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 111 BNS; sections 38, 39, 40 of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. In this, the victim paid Rs 12.5 lakh for surrogacy procedures but the identity of the surrogate was not revealed to them. Other victims paid around Rs 19 lakh for IVF treatments and later for surrogacy procedures. A pre-term girl was handed over to them. Though their samples were collected for embryo formation, the baby's DNA did not match theirs. On enquiry, the accused threatened them which led them to file the complaint. The victims paid Rs 11 lakh for surrogacy procedure to the accused. Crime No.155/2025 U/s 61(2), 316(2), 318(4), 336,111 of BNS-2023: In this case, the victim is a senior 90-year old gynecologist doctor Suri Shrimathi. Her name and medical license details were fraudulently used by the accused on all her official letter heads and other medical documents to mislead the victims. In another case U/s 61 (2), 316 (2), 318(4), 111, 335, 336, 340 BNS & Sections 38, 39 and 40 of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, the victim paid 22 lakh to the accused for surrogacy procedures. Crime No.157/2025 U/s 61 (2), 316 (2), 318(4), 111, 335, 336, 340 BNS & Sections 38, 39 and 40 of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: In this the victims paid Rs 19.5 lakh for surrogacy procedures. The arrested persons were Dr. Athaluri Namratha, Pachipala SS Jayanth Krishna, son of Namratha, Chitikireddi Kalyani Atchayyamma, Manager at Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, Visakhapatnam branch, Gollamandala Chenna Rao Lab Technician & Embryologist at Universal Srushti Fertility center, Nargula Sadanandam, Anesthesiologist working at Gandhi Hospital and actively assisting in all procedures at the Secunderabad clinic, Dhanasri Santoshi, Main agent coordinating with the clinic and operates a vast network of sub-agents who procure babies for sale, Muthipeta Nandhini, agent, Mohammed Ali Adik (birth parent of baby, Nasreen Begum (birth parent of baby, Harsha Roy, Agent) – friend of Nandini and Sanjay, Maranganti Pavan Mohan Krishna, Gollamandala Surekha, Mohammed Asha Begum, Nayan Das, Arimlli Vidyullatha, Shahina, Dr. Pulumuru Usha Devi, Main doctor responsible for delivering the babies at Vizag, Dr. Vasupalli Ravi Anesthesiologist at Vizag clinic, Bingi Ramya, junior embryologist at Vizag clinic, Kodoor Ratnam, Kona Meenakshi, Bagalam Saroja, Kodamala Karuna Sree, Jinugu Vijay Kumar, and Kantipidi Yamuna. All the accused persons who were arrested were produced before Court for their judicial custody. Rashmi Perumal said 'Dr. Namratha established multiple fertility clinics in Secunderabad, Kondapur, Visakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Nellore, Rajahmundry, Bhubaneswar, and Kolkata. She initially claimed to treat patients for infertility and later promoted surrogacy, assuring that all legal formalities would be handled by her clinic. After collecting large sums from clients, she obtained biological samples and provided regular updates on the 'progress' of the pregnancy via phone. At delivery time, babies were procured from vulnerable mothers through a network of agents and handed over to clients, falsely claiming they were from their own samples. Fake medical and DNA reports were created to support the deception.' The DCP said that the sample of the original mother was used instead of the victim. It was revealed that agents were paid Rs.3.5 lakh for a girl and Rs. 4.5 lakh for a boy, while clients were charged up to Rs. 30–40 lakh in each case. Rashmi said, 'The pattern of deception highlights coordinated efforts across cities, medical malpractices, and child trafficking, clearly indicating to a criminal syndicate which exploits loopholes in fertility laws. The accused Namratha created the network with her agents in many states in India. The network systematically targeted emotionally distressed couples and monetized their desperation with complete disregard for human rights, medical ethics, and the law.' The police urge the public to remain cautious and avoid falling victim to fraudulent fertility or surrogacy services. Commercial surrogacy is banned as per Indian laws and any clinic which promises such surrogacy treatments must be immediately reported. Always consult only licensed and legally compliant medical professionals.
Indian Express
20 hours ago
- Indian Express
Pune police challenge JJB order rejecting their plea to try minor driver in Porsche crash as adult
The Pune City Police have appealed against the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) July 15 order that rejected their plea to try the minor accused as an adult in last year's Porsche crash case, in which two software engineers were killed in the city. Adv Sarthi Pansare, who is assisting Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray, said, 'We have challenged the JJB order under section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which pertains to appeals under the law.' The prosecution had argued that the accused in the Pune Porsche case had committed a 'heinous offence', was driving the car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences, he was also part of a blood-swap cover-up conspiracy in which the minor's blood was replaced with his mother's. The defence had opposed the application, arguing that the offence cannot be legally termed 'heinous' and that the object of the Juvenile Justice Act was 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. In the early hours of May 19 last year, the then 17-year-old boy was allegedly driving a Porsche Taycan at a very high speed while being intoxicated, and the car crashed into a motorbike, killing two software engineers— Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. What police investigation unravelled was alleged cover-ups, bribery, abuse of power, and tampering with blood samples at the government-run Sassoon General Hospital. It can be recalled that after the accident, the minor driver was detained and produced before the JJB the same afternoon. The police sought his custody in an observation home and requested he be tried as an adult, but the JJB rejected both pleas and granted him bail with conditions, including writing an essay, studying traffic norms, and undergoing de-addiction counselling. Amid public outcry, the police challenged the order in the district court, which sent the matter back to the JJB. On May 22 last year, the JJB remanded the minor to an observation home until June, with psychological and de-addiction counselling included in his rehabilitation. His initial remand ended on June 5 and was extended to June 12. The police then sought another 14-day extension, while the defence requested his release. After hearing both sides, the JJB extended the remand to June 25. However, the Bombay High Court, responding to a habeas corpus plea from his aunt, ruled the remand illegal and ordered the minor's release into her care. The boy turned 18 in the latter half of 2024. After the July 15 ruling of the JJB, Special Public Prosecutor Hiray has said there is a need for a national-level debate on what constitutes a heinous crime under the provisions of the JJ Act and provisions surrounding this aspect.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Pune police move sessions court against Juvenile Justice Board's rejection of plea to try teenage driver in Porsche crash case as adult
Pune: The city police have filed an appeal before the sessions court against the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) order of July 15 this year, which rejected their plea to try the 17-year-old driver in the Porsche Taycan car crash case as an adult. The crash on May 19, 2024, had claimed the lives of two young IT professionals in the Kalyaninagar area. Deputy commissioner of police (crime) Nikhil Pingale told TOI on Monday, "The Pune district collector, on behalf of state govt, gave us permission on July 31, 2025, to file the appeal. It was filed before the sessions court on Aug 4." You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune The JJB, while rejecting the police's plea, had relied on a Supreme Court ruling of Jan 9, 2020. It held that the offence attributed to the minor in the case could not be considered as 'heinous' under the ambit of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act to merit his trial as an adult. The teenager's lawyer had argued, among other things, that the offences attributed to the minor could not be termed as 'heinous' in nature considering the said SC ruling. The apex court had held that offences prescribing a maximum sentence of more than seven years but not providing any minimum sentence or providing a minimum sentence of less than seven years, cannot be considered a 'heinous offence' within the meaning of section 2 (33) of the JJ Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Japanese AI invention allows you to speak 68 languages instantly. The idea? Genius. Enence 2.0 Undo The JJB upheld this point. On Monday, lawyer Sarthi Pansare, who is assisting special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray, told TOI that the Pune police's appeal, filed under Section 101 of the JJ Act, states that the accident involving the teenager should be treated as an "exceptional case" and his psychological assessment was imperative to know if he acted as a minor or a major at the time of the accident. Pansare said, "Section 467 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) applied in this case for tampering with valuable security (blood samples) provides for a life imprisonment as the maximum punishment but does not provide for a minimum sentence. Our case is that if a minor tried under this section is convicted, s/he can be sentenced to a minimum period of seven years under section 233 (2) of the JJ Act. Our case is that at the time of the incident, the teenage driver was 17 years and eight months old. So, his psychological evaluation was needed. For that purpose, the JJB should have treated the minor as an adult." Pansare said the appeal will be listed for hearing before a special court in due course of time. Two young software engineers were killed when the 17-year-old son of a prominent Pune-based builder rammed their bike from behind at Kalyaninagar junction around 2.30am on May 19, 2024. This occurred while the teen was driving the high-end car back to his bungalow in Wadgaon Sheri after late-night partying with friends at a couple of pubs in Mundhwa. The teenager was released from an observation home after Bombay high court on June 25, 2024, held that his continuation there was illegal. In between, the Pune police had filed an appeal seeking his trial as an adult. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Providing justice for juveniles
Recently, the Karnataka High Court delivered a landmark judgment in criminal appeal no. 200093 of 2019, emphasising the crucial role that police and magistrates must play in identifying juvenile offenders at the very inception of a criminal case. It reiterated the need for vigilance when taking cognisance of offences involving juveniles. The court stressed that proper identification could prevent minors from being wrongly imprisoned with adults. Karthik, convicted of murdering Muniyappa, was the second accused in the case, while his father was the primary accused. Evidence established that Muniyappa had eloped with Chaitra, Karthik's sister, without the family's approval. Both Karthik and his father held a grudge against Muniyappa, and multiple eyewitnesses confirmed their involvement in the crime. When the matter reached the High Court on appeal, the issue of juvenility was raised. Under established legal principles, a plea of juvenility can be introduced at any stage of the proceedings — even after the trial has concluded. Juvenility refers to the claim that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed, in which case the individual should be tried under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the JJ Act). In this case, the offence occurred in 2011, when the JJ Act, 2000, was in force. Though the application asserting juvenility was filed in 2023, the High Court clarified that as per Section 25 of the JJ Act, 2015, the law applicable at the time of the offence must prevail. The court firmly stated that if the police or magistrate had paid closer attention at the time of arrest and trial, Karthik could have been identified as a juvenile and placed under the juvenile justice system. Instead, he spent 13 years in an adult prison — a grave miscarriage of justice. The JJ Act mandates that minors must be presented before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Unfortunately, in numerous cases, juveniles are incorrectly treated as adults and placed in jails, where they are exposed to physical violence, sexual abuse, and are at risk of becoming hardened criminals. Acknowledging the violation of Karthik's rights, the court awarded him compensation of ₹50,000 for having spent 13 years in jail. Had he been produced before the JJB, he would have served a maximum of three years in a juvenile home. In a precedent-setting move, the court ordered the Additional Registrar General, who holds the rank of a Sessions Judge, to conduct the inquiry into Karthik's juvenility claim. This ensured the matter was handled swiftly and with due judicial authority. The court also directed that the judgment be submitted to the JJ High Court Committee, reinforcing the need for systemic awareness and reform. Newly appointed members and chairpersons of the JJBs must now be sensitised to the updated Karnataka Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2025. Additionally, police officials, advocates, magistrates, and judges of children's courts must be thoroughly informed about the 2025 rules. Too often, juveniles are treated as adults, despite their own pleas that they are underage. In many instances, magistrates deny them bail, and the psychological trauma of being placed in an adult jail can have long-lasting impacts. There have also been cases where juveniles arrested along with adult offenders are treated as adults and placed behind bars instead of observation homes meant for juveniles. In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court accepted a plea of juvenility raised 32 years after the alleged offence. In another judgment in criminal appeal No. 347 of 2018, the Supreme Court emphasised that a cautionary approach must be adopted when a plea of juvenility is raised. In this case, the appellant relied on a transfer certificate to support the claim of juvenility. However, the court reiterated that the determination of age must be based on the documents specified under the JJ Act. Since other official records indicated that the individual was not a minor at the time of the offence, the court rejected the plea of juvenility. The aim of the JJ Act is to provide a rehabilitative and reformative environment, allowing juveniles to reintegrate into society. This core purpose is undermined when minors are sent to adult prisons. Names have been changed to protect identity. Geeta Sajjanshetty is an Advocate at the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, and former Juvenile Justice Board Member, Kalaburagi
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
No proposal to reserve 5 per cent government jobs for orphans: MoS Savitri Thakur
NEW DELHI: The government is not considering any proposal to reserve 5 per cent of jobs in government establishments for orphans, the Lok Sabha was informed on Friday. In a written reply, Minister of State for Women and Child Development, Savitri Thakur, said, 'Presently, there is no such proposal under consideration of the government,' in response to a question on whether the government was considering such a reservation. The minister stated that the Women and Child Development (WCD) Ministry administers the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015), as amended in 2021, which is the primary legislation for ensuring the safety, security, dignity and well-being of children in need of care and protection, as well as children in conflict with the law. The Act caters to their basic needs, care, protection, development, treatment, rehabilitation and social reintegration. It establishes statutory structures at the state and district levels, including the State Child Protection Society, Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards and District Child Protection Units. It also provides for the establishment of Child Care Institutions. Thakur informed the House that there are 2,559 child care institutions in the country funded during 2024–25, and about 76,882 children were provided with institutional support during the period.
