Karnataka lockdown: What’s allowed and what’s not from May 10 to 24

An Indian resident who won the Dh20 million (approximately Rs 50 crore) jackpot in Abu Dhabi's Big Ticket draw has told of his joy at sharing his life-changing fortune with a friend.

Shanthanu Shettigar, a shop manager in Muscat, regularly buys tickets for the monthly grand prize draw with one of his closest friends – and the pair won on February 3.

Mr Shettigar, 33, who is from Udyavar in Udupi district of the southern state of Karnataka and has lived in the Omani capital for eight years, said he was left speechless after learning of his success.

“When I first moved to Muscat, many of my colleagues were purchasing Big Ticket, which encouraged me to give it a try,” he said.

“I started buying tickets on my own, and later began sharing tickets with a close friend. The ticket that brought me this win was one we purchased together.”

“Like most people, I receive a lot of spam calls, and I was fully absorbed in my work as well. I knew the live draw was taking place tonight, but I never imagined my name would be announced,” he said.

“When I realised it was real and that I had won, I was honestly speechless. It still hasn’t fully sunk in, but I’m extremely happy.”

Mr Shettigar is not sure how he will spend his share of the money, but encouraged others to take part.

“This win was completely unexpected, so I want to take some time to think things through before deciding what to do next,” he said.

“I would definitely encourage others to participate with Big Ticket, whether with family or friends – you never know when your moment might come.”

The Big Ticket was established in 1992 with an initial first prize of Dh1 million. It is one of the most popular monthly raffles in the UAE.

It has transformed the lives of many people across the Emirates and beyond.

Entry to the Big Ticket Millionaire is Dh500. Tickets can be bought online or at counters at Zayed International Airport and Al Ain Airport.

Bengaluru: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Sunday criticised the Union Budget presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, claiming it offered no tangible benefit to the state.

Though he said he was yet to study the budget in detail, Shivakumar asserted that Karnataka had gained little from it. “There is no benefit for our state from the central budget. I was observing it. They have now named a programme after Mahatma Gandhi, after repealing the MGNREGA Act that was named after him,” he said.

Speaking to reporters here, the Deputy Chief Minister demanded the restoration of MGNREGA, and made it clear that the newly enacted rural employment scheme — VB-G RAM G — which proposes a 60:40 fund-sharing formula between the Centre and the states, would not be implemented in Karnataka.

“I don’t see any major share for our state in this budget,” he added.

Shivakumar, who also holds charge of Bengaluru development, said there were high expectations for the city from the Union Budget. “The Prime Minister calls Bengaluru a ‘global city’, but what has the Centre done for it?” he asked.

He also drew attention to the problems faced by sugar factories, particularly those in the cooperative sector, alleging a lack of timely decisions and support from the central government.

Noting that the Centre has the authority to fix the minimum support price (MSP) for agricultural produce, Shivakumar said the Union government must take concrete steps to protect farmers’ interests.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.