Mangaluru’s Haleema Mizna clears CA exams in first attempt
Mangaluru: Haleema Mizna, a resident of Mangaluru, has achieved a remarkable milestone by clearing her Chartered Accountancy (CA) exams on her first attempt. The results were announced on Friday, December 27.
Haleema began her education at The Yenepoya School and later completed her Pre-University education at St. Agnes College. She pursued her CA studies at St. Aloysius Evening College in Mangaluru and completed her articleship under CA Narendra Pai.
Haleema is the daughter of SM Saleem and Fathima Naseera. Her achievement has brought pride to her family and community, marking a accomplishment in the competitive field of Chartered Accountancy.
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.
Gujarat HC raps law machinery for invoking POCSO Act in molestation case 8 years after FIR
Ahmedabad, Jan 1: The Gujarat High Court has berated the police and prosecution for invoking sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against four men in a molestation case eight years after the FIR was filed and when the trial was near completion.
The court of Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed in an order passed last week that despite the victim categorically stating in her deposition in 2018 that she was 15 years of age at the time of the incident, neither the assistant public prosecutor nor the presiding officer conducting the trial took any action.
The court said the investigating agency as well as prosecution prima facie failed to discharge their duty in appropriate manner and did not make "proper application of mind", leading to wastage of time.
The victim had in 2016 lodged a complaint in Mehsana town in the state against four persons for outraging her modesty in January that year.
The accused were charged under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to outraging modesty and intentional insult, among others, but not under the POCSO Act despite the victim being 15 years of age when the crime took place.
The accused persons moved the high court seeking quashing and setting aside of proceedings arising out of the first information report (FIR), and also the order dated July 19, 2024 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court amending charges to include sections 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
While the court declined to quash the case, it permitted the petitioners to pursue the matter before the POCSO court at the time of further proceedings.
The court noted that when the investigation was carried out, the fact that the girl was 15 years of age at the time of the incident was nowhere referred to.
"Prima facie, it transpires that the investigating agency as well as prosecution and to some extent, the presiding officer have failed in discharging their duties in appropriate manner," the high court observed.
It further said that neither the investigating agency nor the prosecution made proper application of mind, causing the precious time of the investigating agency as well as the concerned court wasted from 2016 to 2024.
The court said it found no error by the concerned trial court in invoking the POCSO Act in the case, while allowing the petitioners to agitate at the time of further proceedings before the concerned POCSO court.
"It is also required to be noted that this is a glaring example that causal approach is adopted by the investigating agency and it has carried out investigation in a mechanical manner without properly applying its mind while carrying out investigation and at the time of filing of chargesheet," it said.
The court also directed the "concerned higher authorities" to look into the matter and do the needful "with a view to avoid repetition of such incidents and if required do the needful to carry out some exercise to find out if any similar incident/s is/are happening anywhere across the state".
It directed that the copy of the order be forwarded to the Director General of Police (DGP), Home Secretary, Law Secretary and the Registrar General of the High Court "for necessary consideration".
"It is expected that the petitioners, as such, are not at fault, and therefore, they can avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law," it added.
