Bengaluru, Jan 14: The High Court has quashed the FIRs filed by the police against the chief executive officers (Karnataka circle) of mobile service providers Airtel, Aircel, Idea and Tata Docomo for not verifying customers’ documents before issuing them SIM cards.
The FIRs were filed by the Malleswaram, HAL and Indiranagar police against the CEOs under sections 419, 420, 468 and 470 of the IPC before the 10th ACMM court. The police had contended the service providers were not checking the documents provided by dealers who were in the habit of forging the documents before issuing SIM?cards to customers.
In July 2010, the Deputy Director General of Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring Cell had written to the DG & IGP stating that during a random inspection, it was found there were multiple connections by service providers resulting in misuse of the SIM cards. Following the letter, the Bengaluru police commissioner directed the Central Crime Branch to take action. Accordingly, the inspector of the CCB’s women and narcotics cell filed a suo motu complaint at police stations across Bengaluru.
But senior counsel C V Nagesh, appearing for the mobile service providers, stated that the companies give SIM?cards to distributors who then distribute them to the retailers. The retailer is the one fabricating the documents before issuing the SIM cards and that the mobile service provider doesn’t have any role to play in it, he argued.
The senior counsel contended that mobile service providers had not violated section 4 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which talks about the conditions of licence. If the retailer distributes SIM cards by forging documents, the service provider cannot be held responsible for it, he asserted.
Justice N Anand on Tuesday observed that the misuse of SIM cards had become rampant of late and mobile phones were being used in bomb blasts.
Over 40 crore people in the country use mobile phones and another 20 crore are expected to use them in the next five years. If the distributor is committing an offence, the mobile service provider cannot be held responsible, he ruled and disposed of the criminal petition.
GO on revenue stamp
The State government told the High Court on Tuesday it had issued an order on December 31, 2014, to reintroduce Re one revenue stamps, prompting a division bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy to dispose of a petition filed by Vijaykumar Sarj S Desai, a resident of Gadag.
The petitioner had argued that the ban imposed on revenue stamps in 2008 following the multi-crore revenue stamp scam had created a black market. Although banned in Karnataka, revenue stamps are being brought from other states and sold here, he contended.
‘Amend petition on KPSC’
The High Court on Tuesday directed activist T J?Abraham to amend his petition by changing the respondent as Governor’s office instead of the Governor.
A division bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy gave the direction and posted the next hearing to Friday.
The petition challenges the appointment of the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC). Abraham had argued that no guidelines were framed and there was no transparency in the procedure to nominate chairperson, vice-chairperson and members to the KPSC.
Objections filed to Anbazhagan’s plea
Former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha and special public prosecutor Bhavani Singh on Tuesday filed their objection in the High Court to the petition filed by DMK general secretary K Anbazhagan seeking permission to intervene as a party under respondents to assist the SPP in the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalitha.
The special bench of Justice C R Kumaraswamy, while hearing the criminal appeals filed by Jayalalitha and her aides, sought to know whether Anbazhagan was a lawyer whether he had and any training in fighting a legal battle in the court under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. “This will not lead anywhere. Moreover, it would be against the law to allow Anbazhagan to intervene as the party respondent to assist SPP in the case,” the judge said.
Anbazhagan, in his petition has said that he had previously intervened before the appropriate courts at all stages of the trial to ensure that justice was not derailed by powerful persons.
During the hearing, Jayalalitha's counsel L Nageswara Rao contended that the trial court had overlooked several judgements and not considered the binding nature of various income tax orders and decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted the income and level of expenditure pleaded by her.
Comments
Add new comment