Students outfit suspects Udupi MLA’s hand in mob attack on hijab girl’s family

Mysuru: The Mysuru land authority at the centre of a financial and political storm - involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and alleged losses of ₹ 45 crore to the state - has received an offer of restitution from his wife, the urban development body's Commissioner, AN Raghunandan said.

"I am in possession of a letter written by Siddaramaiah's wife regarding her intention to return 14 plots (of land). The Chief Minister's son, Yatindra Siddaramaiah, came to our office and delivered the letter. We will take legal advice for the next step..." he told reporters in Mysuru.

Mr Raghunandan also confirmed anti-corruption officials from the city's Lokayukta branch had written seeking cooperation in its inquiry into the charges against the Chief Minister.

He said the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, or MUDA, "will cooperate with the investigation".

The Enforcement Directorate, however, have not reached out as yet, Mr Raghunandan said. The ED, a federal agency, has filed a money laundering case against Siddaramaiah.

There have also been calls for the CBI, another federal agency, to investigate charges against the Chief Minister, but that appears unlikely now given the Karnataka government has withdrawn general consent for its operations in the state. Law Minister HK Patil made the announcement last week.

He ruled out any link with demands for the Chief Minister to be investigated by the CBI, which reports to the BJP-led central government and the ruling Congress and other opposition parties have claimed is being used by that party to target rival leaders, particularly before elections.

On Monday - three days after the Lokayukta filed a case against the Chief Minister, and hours after the ED launched its probe- Siddaramaiah's wife said she had planned to give up the land earlier but was advised against it the allegations against her husband are "politically motivated".

But now, she said, she had made up her mind as "no house, plot, or wealth is more important than my husband's honor, dignity, and peace of mind". She also said the decision was hers alone; "... I am not aware of my husband's opinion on this matter, nor do I concern myself with what my son thinks".

And, in a comment seen as a calculated swipe at the opposition BJP, which is leading calls for the Chief Minister's resignation, his wife also made an emotional appeal to "all political parties and the media" to "please not drag women of political families into the controversy to settle political scores".

Investigative action against the Chief Minister follows the Karnataka High Court quashing a challenge to Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot's order sanctioning Siddaramaiah's prosecution.

Subsequently a trial court ordered framing of charges and directed the Lokayukta to complete the investigation within three months. The ED case was filed based on the Lokayukta FIR.

Siddaramaiah faces an inquiry into claims Parvathi was allotted 14 plots of land in an upmarket Mysuru area as compensation for land elsewhere - holding a far lower value - taken for infrastructure projects.

The Chief Minister has denied all charges and refused calls to resign.

He has been backed by the Congress and his deputy, DK Shivakumar, who is also the state unit boss, and also by members of his cabinet, including IT Minister Priyank Kharge. However, some within the Congress also want him to quit, such as former Assembly Speaker KB Koliwad.

"I will fight. I am not afraid of anything. We are ready to face the investigation. I will fight this legally," he said last week after the High Court had quashed his challenge to the Governor's sanction.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.

New Delhi: Downloading and watching child pornography is an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Supreme Court ruled today in a landmark judgment on the stringent law to prevent child abuse.

The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala set aside the Madras High Court order that had ruled that merely downloading and watching child pornography was not an offence under the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court noted that the high court had committed an "egregious error" in passing the judgment.

The Madras High Court's order had come in a case in which a 28-year-old man was charged with downloading child pornography on his phone. The court had quashed the criminal proceedings against the man and said children these days are grappling with the serious issue of watching pornography and society must be mature enough to educate them instead of punishing them.

The Supreme Court today restored the criminal proceedings against the man.

At the outset, Justice Pardiwala thanked the Chief Justice for the opportunity to pen this judgment. The order focused on Section 15 of the POCSO Act which lays down punishment for the storage of pornographic material involving children.

"Any person who stores any pornographic material involving a child and fails to report or destroy it is punishable with a fine of not less than five thousand rupees., and repeat offence will be punishable with fine of not less than ten thousand rupees. If the material is stored for further transmitting or propagating, then along with fine, it is punishable with upto three years of imprisonment. For storing child pornographic material for commercial purpose is punishable with three to five years of imprisonment, and in subsequent conviction, upto seven years of imprisonment," the Section says.

Justice Pardiwala said that in this case, mens rea is to be gathered from actus rea -- mens rea refers to the intent behind the crime and actus rea is the actual criminal act.

"We have said on the lingering impact of child pornography on the victimisation and abuse of children... We have suggested to the Parliament to bring an amendment to POCSO... so that child pornography can be referred to as child sexually abusive and exploitative material. We have suggested an ordinance can be brought in. We have asked all courts not to refer to child pornography in any order," the bench said.

The Chief Justice called it a "landmark judgment" and thanked Justice Pardiwala.