Omicron may have emerged in Karnataka much earlier, says Epidemiologist

Mangaluru, Feb 3: Kanachur College of Physiotherapy and Kanachur Hospital & Research Centre, in association with U.T. Fareed Foundation (R), organised the 11th Late Mrs. Naseema Fareed Memorial Lecture on Tuesday.

The programme was inaugurated by Dr. Subramanyam K, Head of the Department and Professor, Department of Cardiology, Srinivas Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Mangaluru. In his inaugural address, Dr. Subramanyam delivered an insightful talk highlighting the vital role of physiotherapy in modern medical care, particularly in cardiac rehabilitation, patient recovery, and improving overall quality of life through a multidisciplinary healthcare approach.

The presidential address was delivered by Dr. Haji U.K. Monu, Chairman, KIET. The keynote address was presented by Dr. Mohammed Ismail Hejamady, who spoke on the evolving scope and significance of physiotherapy.

The event was held in the presence of Mr. Abdul Rahiman, Director, Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangaluru; Dr. Vaishali Sreejith, Senate Member, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru; Dr. Sudhan S.G., Professor and Principal, Krupanidhi College of Physiotherapy, Bengaluru; Dr. Shanavaz Manipady, Dean, Kanachur Institute of Medical Sciences, Mangaluru; and Dr. Venkat Rai Prabhu, Member, Kanachur Health Science Advisory Council, Kanachur Hospital & Research Centre.

Dr. Mohammad Suhail, Dean, Kanachur College of Physiotherapy, welcomed the guests and delegates.

As part of the programme, a two-day free workshop was organised on the following topics:

•    Art of Practice in Cardiopulmonary Conditions by Dr. Sudhan S.G., Principal, Krupanidhi College of Physiotherapy

•    The Gift of Life – Organ Donation by Dr. Rohan Monis, Chief Administrative Medical Officer

•    Chest X-ray Interpretation by Dr. Hemanth, Department of Radiology, KIMS

•    Pulmonary Rehabilitation by Dr. Vijaya Kumar, Department of Respiratory Medicine, KIMS

Organisers noted that the memorial lecture series has been conducted continuously for the 11th year, benefiting interns and postgraduate students from various colleges across Mangaluru. A total of 130 delegates attended the workshop.

Dr. Reshma, Vice Principal, Kanachur College of Physiotherapy, Mangaluru, delivered the vote of thanks.

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.

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.