Man arrested for defrauding jewellers by exchanging counterfeit gold
His sixth attempt at deception led to his arrest when the jeweller alerted the cops. Two associates of Langaliya were also booked.
The investigation revealed that a trio, comprising Langaliya, Vivek Soni, and Hari Rabari, specifically targeted jewellery shops. One such victim was Hardik Kamani, owner of Shiv Mandir Jewellers.
On June 5, Langaliya and Soni visited his shop to purchase a gold chain weighing 10.25g, valued at Rs 1.05 lakh.
During the interaction, Langaliya expressed interest in exchanging his old gold chain, presenting Kamani with an 11.71g piece. Upon weighing, Kamani calculated it to be worth Rs 1.02 lakh and asked for the remaining Rs 3,000.
Subsequent verification of the exchanged chain raised Kamani's suspicions. He promptly contacted the cops, resulting in Langaliya's arrest. In his police statement, Kamani disclosed that the same group had previously deceived him twice using fake gold chains.
Further investigation revealed that other jewellers, Chetan Dhameliya and Bharat Radadiya, were similarly defrauded of Rs 6.80 lakh. Sarthana police have deployed units to locate and arrest the remaining two gang members.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Can raze illegal parts, won't leave': Residents stay put in homes declared ‘dangerous' by MCD
As of July 14, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), as part of its annual survey across its 12 zones in the Capital, has declared 22 houses as 'dangerous' and 320 'in need of repair'. However, despite being issued evacuation notices, residents of several such 'dangerous' houses continue to stay on, refusing to vacate the premises. These 'dangerous' structures are located in areas like Kotla Mubarakpur, Okhla village, Sahyog Vihar, Seelampur, Dariba Kalan, Rohini, Burari, and Jahangirpuri, among others. The Indian Express visited a few such houses, where many residents have refused to leave. At Keshavpuram Zone in Shalimar Bagh in Northwest Delhi, four lower-income group flats in a building constructed by the Delhi Development Authority in BB Block have been declared dangerous by the MCD. All four flats are occupied, with one resident claiming he has a 'stability certificate' issued by a 'structural engineer'. Visible cracks run along the pillars of the building — which has 18 flats — while swollen walls do not allow any door to be shut. A resident of one of the four flats said that several parts of the building have been constructed illegally. 'Two years ago, I had written to various authorities stating that the house has developed cracks… the ceiling of rooms and washrooms has fallen multiple times. They conducted a survey and said either to vacate the house or demolish the illegal parts.' The last evacuation notice was received by the resident on May 22, asking him to vacate the premises within 24 hours. 'But since then, no one has come here to check… We are ready to demolish unauthorised constructions but not vacate the flat,' he added. A resident who stays in a flat on the first floor — also in the list of four dangerous houses — said he had taken the flat on rent in 2009. 'After the building was declared dangerous, we got a survey done by structural engineers, who said the building is safe. Now, we will go and meet the authorities.' Over 17 km away, a narrow road covered with silt and flooded with rainwater leads to an old red-coloured building with visible cracks in the plaster. Located near Piayaao Chowk in Garhi village in East of Kailash, houses, along with shops in the building, have been declared dangerous. The ground floor houses three shops – a pharmacy, a mobile store, and a shop selling bags. Residents live on the above three floors. The pharmacy owner said he did not know that the building had been categorised as dangerous. However, tenants, who have been staying on the second floor for over a year and paying a rent of Rs 10,000, said the notice came two to three months ago. Following this, they were told by the owner that the building had been repaired, they claimed. The owner of the building could not be contacted for a comment. At 766, Chabi Ganj in Kashmere Gate, a two-storey building — housing six-seven flats — stands with half-demolished walls, mattresses and toilet seats buried under the debris. According to the residents, they were issued a notice of evacuation on June 2. Two weeks later, the houses were demolished. Local residents claimed most of the occupants were either given money or land by the builder to vacate the premises. One of the residents, Bharat Kumar, claimed that the building had not been surveyed by the civic authorities. The MCD study, being conducted for over five months now, has surveyed 98.35% or 30,93,678 houses that fall under the civic body's limits. While nine zones have been examined, surveys at Shahdara (North), City-SP, and Karol zones are yet to be completed, said officials. An official from MCD said that once a house is declared dangerous after a survey conducted by a local junior engineer (JE), a 'vacation notice' is served to the occupants as well as the local police. 'The police have to ensure that the building is vacated,' the official said, adding that this should usually happen within a day or sometimes within a week. The official further said that if residents of a 'dangerous' building ask for time to get the premises repaired, the JE has to take a call on this. 'If permission is granted, repair work has to start within a few hours… following which a structure engineer will survey the work and submit a report to the MCD for approval.'
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Forced to name Yogi Adityanath, RSS leaders: Malegaon case witness turns hostile
One of the 39 witnesses who turned hostile in the Malegaon 2008 blast case was Milind Joshirao, Trustee of the Abhinav Bharat Trust, who also ran a lift business. Joshirao told the court that ATS officers Shrirao and Param Bir Singh threatened to torture him and coerced him to name Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and other RSS was picked up by the ATS on October 28, 2008, nearly a month after the blast, and remained in custody until November 7, 2008. He was kept at the ATS office for more than seven days. Despite being a prosecution witness, Joshirao did not support the claims for which he was brought to court, namely, to establish the motive behind the formation of the Abhinav Bharat organisation, allegedly set up by serving army officer Lt. Col. Prasad to the prosecution, a meeting was held in June 2006 at Raigad Fort, attended by Purohit, businessman Ajay Rahirkar, Rakesh Dhawade, and several witnesses, including Milind Joshirao. Dhawade had been discharged by the special court before the trial prosecution claimed that the idea of forming Abhinav Bharat originated with Purohit and was discussed during the Raigad Fort meeting. All attendees reportedly agreed to the proposal and took an oath at the fort to establish Abhinav Bharat and work towards its objectives. The Abhinav Bharat Trust was formed in 2007, according to the was further alleged that the accused aimed to transform India into a 'Hindu Rashtra' called 'Aryavart.' Dissatisfied with the Indian Constitution, they allegedly planned to create their own, form a government in exile and train individuals in guerrilla warfare. The group allegedly intended to eliminate those opposing the formation of a 'Hindu Rashtra'. Purohit was accused of collecting Rs 21 lakh to fund these Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal cross-examined Joshirao after he was declared hostile by the court. However, even during cross-examination, Joshirao did not make any statements that supported the prosecution's case. He specifically denied attending the Raigad Fort meeting or that any oath was taken to create a separate 'Hindutva Vadi Rashtra'.Instead, he stated, "ATS treated me like an accused and kept me for seven days at their office. The officers pressured me to name five RSS individuals, including Yogi Adityanath, Asimanand, Indresh Kumar, Professor Devdhar, Sadhvi, and Kakaji, in my statement. They assured me I would be released if I did so. When I refused, DCP Shrirao and Additional Commissioner of Police Param Bir Singh threatened me with torture,' as noted by Judge judge further observed that Joshirao's statement 'was written down/recorded solely by an ATS officer.'Considering his testimony in court, the judge stated, 'It clearly indicates that the statement was involuntary. Even if the contents of such a statement are proven by the investigating officer, it may still be insufficient, as it raises doubts regarding its admissibility and the authenticity of such an involuntary statement.'- Ends
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Consumers win cases, but justice delayed
Hyderabad: For many consumers in Hyderabad, winning a case at a consumer commission no longer guarantees justice. Despite securing favourable verdicts, many are left waiting years to receive compensation. Increasingly, they're being forced to file Execution Applications (EAs), a step that was meant to be rare but has now become routine just to get the commission's orders enforced. Even then, the wait continues. Consumers complain of bureaucratic delays, indifferent companies, and a system with few teeth to ensure compliance. As a result, many end up spending more time and money trying to enforce the verdict than they did pursuing the case. Shreyansh K, a resident of LB Nagar who filed an EA many years ago, said, "I filed my complaint in 2014, and in 2019, the commission awarded me Rs 2 lakh. But even after filing multiple EAs, I haven't received a single rupee till now." You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad A senior official from one of the city's consumer commissions admitted that EA filings have surged in recent years. "Getting a favourable judgment is tough. Getting it implemented is even tougher. Each of the four commissions in Hyderabad has over 250 to 300 pending execution applications," the official said. Many advocates attribute the crisis to poor enforcement mechanisms. "Consumer commissions can pass binding orders, but can't ensure compliance. Many firms delay payments or appeal to higher forums just to stall execution," said TV Rajeshwar Rao, president of the Hyderabad District Consumer Fora Advocates Association. "Without the help of enforcement agencies like the police, warrants and compensation orders are often ignored. And when the opposite party disappears, there's little that can be done," he added. As the backlog grows, consumer trust in the system is beginning to erode. What was supposed to be a quick and effective dispute redressal forum is increasingly seen as another stop in a long, uncertain legal journey. What's an Execution Application? When the party at fault does not comply with a consumer commission's order within 30-45 days, the complainant can file an Execution Application under Section 27A of Consumer Protection Act. It seeks enforcement through legal means. The EA remains pending until proof of compliance is submitted by the opposite party. A LONG WAIT FOR SOME… Bank ignores order in FD case Mohammed Zareena, a resident of Madhapur, approached the district consumer commission-III after her bank deducted money from a five-year fixed deposit to settle her husband's credit card dues. Last year, the commission ruled in her favour and ordered the bank to refund Rs 1.7 lakh and pay Rs 50,000 as compensation. The bank ignored the ruling. Zareena filed an EA, but it's still pending, with no recovery in sight. Dealer leaves buyer in limbo Mandala Laxminarayana, a resident of Secunderabad, bought a second-hand car for Rs 5.7 lakh in 2020, only to find later that it had an unpaid loan of Rs 4.1 lakh and the ownership wasn't transferred. The district consumer redressal commission-II ruled in his favour, ordering a refund with interest and Rs 1 lakh compensation. He filed an EA in 2021, but over three years later, the matter is still unresolved. He's left with a car he can't sell or use legally. Buyer waits 5 yrs for compliance In 2019, Vardharaju R, a resident of Saidabad, received the wrong sofa, a smaller blue version instead of the white XL he ordered. The district consumer redressal commission-II ruled in his favour and ordered the seller to replace it and pay Rs 50,000 in compensation. When the firm didn't comply, he filed an EA in 2020. Five years on, the sofa hasn't been replaced and the compensation hasn't arrived.
