Shop owners exonerated in Kanakapura blast case
Bengaluru (PTI): Two shop owners from whose shop gelatin sticks were illegally purchased leading to the blast in Kanakapura in 2021, that killed one person, have been exonerated in the case.
The High Court quashed the case against Prakash Rao M and his son P Sunil Kumar, the shop owners after finding that they were not involved in the sale and it was one of their employees who had sold the gelatin sticks without their knowledge.
Rao and Kumar approached the HC with a criminal petition which was heard by Justice K Natarajan. The two were facing a case pending in the II Additional District and Sessions Judge court at Kanakapuara.
The case was registered at the Satanur police station under various Sections of the Explosive Substances Act and Explosives Act and Indian Penal Code.
A car parked in the Satanur police station limits was involved in a blast leading to the death of one person on August 16, 2021.
The deceased was one Mahesh who was carrying gelatin in his car. After investigation police filed a charge sheet in which Rao and Kumar were also named as accused as they were the shop owners where the gelatin was purchased.
The two contended before the court that they were not present in the shop when the alleged sale took place. A worker in the shop, Harish Kumar, who is also one of the accused, had sold it to the deceased Mahesh. No bill was also raised by the other accused. They claimed that they had no knowledge of the sale and therefore were not responsible for the crime.
The government advocate, however, contended that these two accused were licence holders and "they have no authority to sell to any other persons except the contractors who have obtained the contract for blasting stone in quarries."
The HC in its judgment noted, "Accused No.3/Harish Kumar categorically stated in the voluntary statement that in the absence of the owners, he used to sell the explosives without the knowledge of the owners and money received by him was spent on himself.
The accused no.3 who is employee has categorically stated that without the knowledge of the owners, he used to sell the same through accused No.2 and spent money on themselves without accounting to the petitioners/owners. Such being the case, the question of implicating this petitioner for having violated the license cannot be accepted."
Quashing the case against the two shop owners, the HC said, "Any offence committed by the servant cannot be said to be vicarious liability by the owners/ employer in the criminal law. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that conducting criminal proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, liable to be quashed."
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.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
