Vitla: Men posing as ED officers visit beedi company owner, dupe him of Rs 30 lakh
Vitla: A beedi company owner in Bantwal taluk was recently duped of Rs 30 lakh by a group of men claiming to be officers from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) who were conducting a raid on his house.
The group visited the house of Sulaiman Haji situated at Narsha near Bolanturu within the jurisdiction limits of Vitla Police Station late at night and declared before Sulaiman, who owns ‘Singaari Beedi’ company, that they were ED officers. Coming in a car with a Tamil Nadu registration, they were apparently paying a ‘surprise visit’.
Conducting a raid on the beedi company owner’s house for up to two hours, they are learned to have looted Rs 30 lakh kept in the house.
Vitla Police, who were informed of the incident, paid a visit to the house and held an inspection.
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.
Karnataka HC quashes FIR against three men accused of 'preaching Islam' near temple premises
Bengaluru, Jul 25 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against three Muslim men who were accused of "preaching Islam" and distributing religious pamphlets near a Hindu temple in Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district.
The complaint had alleged that the men attempted religious conversion by making promises of employment and passed derogatory remarks about Hinduism.
However, the High Court held that there was no substantial evidence of coercion, fraud, or inducement--criteria necessary for prosecution under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022.
The court made it clear that mere expression or distribution of religious literature does not amount to an offence unless accompanied by forceful or deceitful attempts to convert.
"The essence of a free society lies in the freedom to express, discuss, and propagate beliefs," the bench observed.
It further stated that peaceful preaching, in the absence of coercion or allurement, is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess and propagate one's religion.
Additionally, the bench noted that the complainant in the case was neither the alleged victim nor a relative of one. As per Section 4 of the 2022 Act, only an aggrieved individual or their close relatives are permitted to lodge such complaints--making the FIR procedurally invalid.
