Close liquor shops in DK Police limits till May 3, M’luru Commissionerate limits till May 4: DC
Mangaluru: As precautionary measure in the backdrop of the murder of rowdy-sheeter Suhas Shetty, Deputy Commissioner Mullai Muhilan has ordered the closure of all liquor shops within Mangaluru Police Commissionerate limits as well as Dakshina Kannada District Police jurisdiction limits.
While shops under the jurisdiction limits of Mangaluru Police Commissionerate are to remain closed till 6 am on Sunday, May 4, the DC has said. He has added that shops within Dakshina Kannada District Police jurisdiction limits will be closed till 6 am on Saturday, May 3.
Speaking on the incident and the outcome, the senior officer said that the murder of Shetty has created tension across the district. Officers are making efforts to maintain peace by ensuring there is no violation of law, he added.
Muhilan spoke of the possibility of violence across Dakshina Kannada district at the hands of miscreants who consume intoxicants and clarified that he was issuing the order for closure of the shops as District Magistrate following the proposals by the Mangaluru City Police Commissioner and the Dakshina Kannada Superintendent of Police.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Defamation case: Rahul alleges political malice; UP court sets March 9 hearing
Sultanpur (UP) (PTI): Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Friday appeared before an MP-MLA court in Uttar Pradesh's Sultanpur and recorded his statement in a 2018 defamation case related to his remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Gandhi told the court of Special Judge Shubham Verma that the allegations against him were made out of political malice and with an aim of destroying his image and that of his party, the Congress leader's advocate Kashi Prasad Shukla told PTI.
The court fixed March 9 as the next date of hearing on which the Lok Sabha MP from Raebareli has been asked to furnish evidence in his defence, the lawyer said.
Elaborating about the statement given by the Congress leader in the court, his lawyer said Gandhi denied all allegations levelled against him.
ALSO READ: Answer to 'abject surrender' lies in 'grips', 'chokes' placed on PM: Rahul on India-US trade deal
"The allegations are baseless and unfounded. I have never used derogatory words against anyone, nor have I used such language with the intention of defaming anyone. A false complaint has been filed by distorting my statement," Shukla quoted Gandhi as saying.
"The allegations have been made against me out of political malice with the aim of destroying my image and that of my party. I have never used derogatory words against anyone, nor have I used such language with the intention of defaming anyone," Gandhi told the court
As the Congress leader emerged from the court after recording his statement, party supporters raised slogans hailing him. Gandhi smiled and waved at the crowd before leaving.
Gandhi entered the Sultanpur court around 10.40 am and left after recording statements around 11.15 am.
Ahead of the court hearing, some local Congress leaders had put up posters in Sultanpur that read 'Satyamev Jayate' (truth always triumphs).
The case dates back to 2018 when local BJP leader and former chairman of the District Cooperative Bank Vijay Mishra had filed a defamation complaint against Gandhi, alleging that during the Karnataka elections in 2018, the Congress leader made derogatory remarks against the then BJP president and current Union Home Minister Shah.
Santosh Kumar Pandey, the lawyer representing Mishra, said the cross-examination of the plaintiff and two witnesses has been completed.
The trial has been underway for the past five years. In December 2023, a warrant was issued against Gandhi for non-appearance before the court. He surrendered in February 2024, following which a special magistrate granted him bail on two sureties of Rs 25,000 each.
On July 26, 2024, Gandhi recorded his statement before the court, claiming innocence and terming the case a political conspiracy. Thereafter, the court directed the complainant to produce evidence in the case.
