Israeli company apologises for putting Gandhi's image on its liquor bottles
Jerusalem, Jul 3: An Israeli company that stoked controversy by putting the image of Mahatma Gandhi on its liquor bottles to commemorate Israel's 71st independence Day on Wednesday apologised to the people and the Government of India for "hurting" their sentiments.
Rajya Sabha members on Tuesday expressed concern over picture of the Father of the Nation on liquor bottles of the Israeli company, prompting Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu to direct External Affairs minister S Jaishankar to look into the matter and take immediate appropriate action.
"Malka Beer offers its heartfelt apologies to the people and the Government of India for hurting their sentiments," Gilad Dror, the Brand Manager of the company, said in a statement.
"We highly respect and value Mahatma Gandhi and regret our action of putting his image on our bottles," he said.
He also said that the company had stopped production and supplies of the bottles once the issue was raised by the Indian embassy in Israel, and "it is now making efforts to withdraw the product from the market."
The manufacturers "intention had in fact been to honour Mahatma Gandhi", who was the only non-Israeli face on the limited edition bottles that included three former prime ministers - David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Menachem Begin. The father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, was the fifth prominent figure featuring on the limited edition bottles.
Dror has also promised the Indian mission that they would keep such sentiments in mind in the future.
The controversial bottle was included in a box set meant to commemorate Israel's 71st Independence Day. The set featured the five historical figures on various types of beer, including a cartoon image of Gandhi decked out in shades and a tie-dye shirt.
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.
Broken relationships don't automatically amount to abetment of suicide: SC
New Delhi (PTI): Broken relationships, while emotionally distressing, do not automatically amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of intention leading to the criminal offence, the Supreme Court on Friday said.
The observations came from a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan in a judgement, which overturned the conviction of one Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi by the Karnataka High Court for the offences of cheating and abetment of suicide under the IPC.
"This is a case of a broken relationship, not criminal conduct," the judgment said.
Sanadi was initially charged under Sections 417 (cheating), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 376 (rape) of the IPC.
While the trial court acquitted him of all the charges, the Karnataka High Court, on the state's appeal, convicted him of cheating and abetment of suicide, sentencing him to five years imprisonment and imposing Rs 25,000 in fine.
According to the FIR registered at the mother's instance, her 21-year-old daughter was in love with the accused for the past eight years and died by suicide in August, 2007, after he refused to keep his promise to marry.
Writing a 17-page judgement, Justice Mithal analysed the two dying declarations of the woman and noted that neither was there any allegation of a physical relationship between the couple nor there was any intentional act leading to the suicide.
The judgement therefore underlined broken relationships were emotionally distressing, but did not automatically amount to criminal offences.
"Even in cases where the victim dies by suicide, which may be as a result of cruelty meted out to her, the courts have always held that discord and differences in domestic life are quite common in society and that the commission of such an offence largely depends upon the mental state of the victim," said the apex court.
The court further said, "Surely, until and unless some guilty intention on the part of the accused is established, it is ordinarily not possible to convict him for an offence under Section 306 IPC.”
The judgement said there was no evidence to suggest that the man instigated or provoked the woman to die by suicide and underscored a mere refusal to marry, even after a long relationship, did not constitute abetment.
