Maharashtra MLC complains about ‘forged' transfer of local area funds
umbai: MLC Prasad Lad on Wednesday complained about his local area funds being transferred from Ratnagiri to Beed district by forging his signature and using a fake letterhead.
Raising a point of information, he said in his case, Rs 3.2 crore were transferred, which raised the suspicion of the development planning officer, who called him to ascertain if he asked for the money to be transferred.
Upon this, Council chairman Ram Shinde said in the past a similar incident happened in his case, as well as in the cases of MLCs Uma Khapre and Niranjan Davkhare. Shinde said he lodged a police complaint. "This poses a challenge for the govt, and it needs to frame a policy," he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
31 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Search operation to track down terrorists resumes in J&K's Kishtwar
The joint operation by the police and the army was launched on Sunday afternoon in Khankoo forest in Cherji area between Dachhan and Nagseni, officials said Press Trust of India Jammu Security forces on Monday resumed a search operation to track down a group of terrorists hiding in a dense forest in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir, officials said. The joint operation by the police and the army was launched on Sunday afternoon in Khankoo forest in Cherji area between Dachhan and Nagseni, they said. It triggered a brief encounter with the terrorists believed to be affiliated with the proscribed Hizbul Mujahideen outfit and included two top-ranking ultras carrying a reward of Rs 30 lakhs each, officials said. After the gunfight, reinforcements were rushed to the scene and a massive search operation was launched to neutralise the fleeing terrorists, officials said, adding that the operation was called off late Sunday. It resumed on Monday morning with security forces deploying drones and sniffer dogs to relentlessly chase the trail to hunt down the terrorists, they said. The officials said security forces have already plugged the escape routes and expanded the operation to nearby areas, but thick foliage and challenging topography pose a challenge to the search parties. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Bad news for India, UAE, Turkey as European Union imposes new sanctions on Russia, Fuel price likely to..., Modi govt now plans to...
New Delhi: In a major development, the European Union (EU) has imposed new sanctions on Russia, which could cause a major economic blow to India. The latest move by the European Union (EU) will put India's petroleum product exports worth USD 15 billion (approximately Rs 1,29,281 crore) to the EU at risk, according to the economic think tank GTRI (Global Trade Research Initiative). It is important to note that if the EU is derived from Russian crude oil, they will no longer purchase petroleum products from third countries. This step will also adversely affect countries like Turkey and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in addition to India, according to GTRI. These countries had been buying cheap crude oil from Russia, refining it, and then exporting products like diesel, petrol, and jet fuel (ATF) to Europe. GTRI founder Ajay Srivastava stated that these new EU rules will create challenges for countries like India, which have been refining Russian oil and exporting it to Europe. Here are some of the key details: India's USD 15 billion petroleum product exports are at risk due to the EU's new sanctions. In the financial year 2023–24, India exported petroleum products worth USD 19.2 billion to the EU, according to GTRI. In 2024–25, this figure dropped by 27.1 percent to USD 15 billion. The think tank stated that in the financial year 2024–25, India imported crude oil worth $50.3 billion from Russia. This accounts for more than one-third of India's total crude oil import bill of $143.1 billion. Is India's trade with Russia legal? India is conducting a legal and legitimate trade with Russia, according to Ajay Srivastava, founder of GTRI. India will have to strike a balance between economic practicality and geopolitical pressure, as energy ties between both countries have deepened. Now, the moot question is, what is EU's main motive behind these sanctions? The main aim of the EU's new sanctions is to weaken Russia's economy. Due to the Russia-Ukraine war, the EU has imposed several economic sanctions on Russia. These sanctions are intended to prevent Russia from raising funds for the war. India purchases crude oil from Russia to meet its energy needs. India is the third-largest oil consumer in the world. It imports 85 percent of its oil requirements. Russia is a key supplier of crude oil to India. How Is India Dealing with Current Situation? The European Union's sanctions could have an adverse impact on India's economy. India may now have to procure crude oil from alternative sources in order to export petroleum products to the EU. The Indian government is focusing on strengthening trade relations with other countries India is making efforts to increase domestic oil production. Ajay Srivastava said, 'The EU's new sanctions pose a challenge for countries like India. To ensure its energy security, India will need to adopt a balanced approach.' This means that India will have to maintain its trade relations with Russia while also strengthening its ties with Western countries.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
2006 Mumbai train blasts: Bombay HC acquits all 12 accused, sets aside their death penalty and life terms
The Bombay High Court Monday set aside a special court verdict that awarded the death sentence to five accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, and refused the Maharashtra Government's plea seeking confirmation of their sentences. The high court acquitted all 12 accused in the case, including those sentenced to life imprisonment. The special bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak questioned the trustworthiness of certain prosecution witnesses and the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of some of the accused. The bench ordered their release, if they are not required to be detained in any other case, and directed all of them to execute personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each. Finding substance in the case of defence lawyers, the bench observed that the prosecution 'utterly failed to establish the offences beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused on each count.' The bench led by Justice Kilor held, 'It is unsafe to reach the satisfaction that the appellant accused have committed the offence for which they have been convicted and sentenced. Therefore, the accused judgment and order of conviction and sentence are liable to be quashed and set aside' There were 13 accused, of whom one was acquitted by the special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA). Of the 12, five were sentenced to death, one of whom died in prison during the pandemic, and seven were awarded a life term. The special bench passed the judgement over five months after it concluded the hearing on January 31. The Bombay High Court had conducted hearings over the span of six months from July last year. Mumbai train bombings and the case A series of bombs exploded on seven western suburban coaches, killing 189 commuters and injuring 824 on July 11, 2006. After an over eight-year trial, the special court under the MCOCA awarded the death penalty to five of the convicts, and life terms to seven others in September 2015. The death sentences were awarded on charges of spreading terror, organised crime, criminal conspiracy and murder under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), Explosives Substances Act, 1908, MC OCA, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Railways Act, 1989. The convicts are lodged at various prisons across the state, including Yerawada and Amravati central jails, for over 18 years. They filed the pleas after they were convicted by the special court, and the matter had been pending since then. There were 250 witnesses, including 92 prosecution witnesses, and the evidence in the case spanned over 169 volumes, and the judgments of death sentences of nearly 2,000 pages. Five convicts awarded the death penalty are Kamal Ahmed Mohd Vakil Ansari from Bihar, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh from Mumbai, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique from Thane, Naveed Hussain Khan from Secunderabad, and Asif Khan Bashir Khan from Jalgaon in Maharashtra. All of them were found guilty of planting the bombs. Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh, and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh were awarded life terms. One of the accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted by the trial court after spending nine years in jail. Maharashtra Govt vs defence In 2015, the Maharashtra Government approached the Bombay High Court with pleas seeking confirmation of the death penalty granted to five convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings. On the other hand, the convicts filed appeals challenging the special court order. As the convicts sought speedy disposal of the matter, which had been pending since 2015, the HC in July 2024 constituted a special bench led by Justice Kilor, which conducted regular hearings through more than 75 sittings over the span of six months. Senior lawyer S Muralidhar (former Delhi HC judge), Senior Advocates Nitya Ramakrishnan and S Nagamuthu, along with Advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, represented the convicts, whereas Senior Advocate Raja Thakare, appointed as special public prosecutor (SPP), appeared for the Maharashtra Government. The lawyers representing the convicts argued that their 'extra-judicial confessional statements' obtained by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) through 'torture' were inadmissible under the law. They also argued the convicts were falsely implicated, innocent, and were languishing in jail for 18 years without substantial evidence, and their prime years were gone in incarceration. They said the trial court erred in convicting them, and, therefore, the said order set aside. On its part, the Maharashtra Government opposed the appeals by the convicts, claiming the probe agency provided sufficient evidence to establish it was a 'rarest of the rare' case to sentence the accused to the death penalty.
