Assam Police's Crackdown On Illegal Beef Sale: 196 Detained In 2 Days
In the past two days, in several districts of Assam, 178 places, including hotels, restaurants and slaughterhouses, have been raided and searched, and 196 people have been detained in a major crackdown against the sale of beef in the state.
Over 1,700 kg of beef has been seized in the last days by the Assam police under the Cattle Prevention Act, 2021.
The police launched a coordinated operation against the illegal sale of beef, conducting simultaneous raids across multiple districts under the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021. The Act prohibits the slaughter of cattle and the sale of beef near temples and in Hindu-majority areas.
On day 1 of the biggest crackdown under the Cattle Preservation Act, raids were carried out in 112 hotels across Guwahati, Nagaon, Charaideo, Kokrajhar, South Kamrup, and Dibrugarh, resulting in the seizure of large quantities of both cooked and raw meat suspected to be beef. In Kokrajhar alone, four hotels were searched by police teams.
According to police, 133 people have been detained and 1084 kg of suspected beef was seized. According to reports, several kilograms of beef were recovered, and multiple individuals were detained, while several others managed to flee during the operations at various locations.
More than 70 kg of beef was recovered from hostels in Guwahati's Katahbari area today during a raid by the Garchok police, police sources added.
This enforcement drive comes in the wake of recent communal tensions during Eid, during which 16 people were arrested for allegedly slaughtering cattle illegally. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has reiterated that while religious freedoms are protected, any violation of the law will invite strict action.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Bengaluru excise inspector's fake expense theory ends in jail
BENGALURU: A theory to show expenses for children's delivery and income from 'fortune telling', turned into misfortune for an Excise inspector after the Special Court for Lokayukta cases rejected it and sentenced him to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 30 lakh. The accused, K Krishnamurthy, the then Excise Inspector, Bengaluru South Range, was found guilty of possessing disproportionate assets of Rs 29.98 lakh, which is 70.46%. His actual income was Rs 42.55 lakh, and expenditure was Rs 72.54 lakh during the check period from 1990 to 2013. He was sentenced for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was booked in August 2013 by the Lokayukta police. 'The conduct of the accused, being a public servant in illegally accumulating assets disproportionate to his known source of income, truly demands stringent punishment. So, it could be a message to public servants involved in corrupt activities,' said Judge KM Radhakrishna. Among other reasons for sentencing the accused, the court noted that the accused and his family are Hindus. In more than 90% of Hindu families, a pregnant woman goes to her parents' house well in advance for delivery. The parents take care of all the expenses pertaining to the mother and child. Therefore, only 15 per cent, that is, Rs 1.45 lakh reduction of Rs 9.69 lakh domestic expenses, could ensure the reasonableness to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, Rs 8.24 lakh is considered to be the domestic expenditure of the accused, the court said. The accused, from the Kani community, has shown Rs 5 lakh income from 'Kani' (fortune telling) and Rs 3 lakh from 'Naati Maddu'. He produced nothing except for taking the defence of old palm leaves found in his house during the raid. He himself admitted the faith, belief, tradition and customs of the community, forbids imparting these secret knowledge for a fee, likewise, fee cannot be charged from the seeker as 'Dakshine' along with betel leaves can be accepted, should not be shared, commented or expressed displeasure for it is equivalent to 'Gratus'- Kanike'. Therefore, the accused's story is really surprising, the court said while rejecting the projection of income of Rs 8 lakh by him to escape from the punishment, saying it is unimaginable.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trial against Sheikh Hasina part of a political conflict: Lawyer
Sheikh Hasina (File photo) Report by Ahsan Tasnim DHAKA: The charge of "crimes against humanity" is inapplicable to former Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina as the cases she is being tried for are part of a political conflict and not a war, her state-appointed lawyer argued on Monday in the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), which has set July 10 for framing charges against her and two of her close aides. Stating that according to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, only acts committed during war can be prosecuted as "crimes against humanity", Hasina's counsel Amir Hossain sought exemption for the Awami League politician, who is being tried in absentia. Hossain is also representing former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former inspector general of police Chowdhury Abdullah al Mamun in the case. "The events stemmed from political change, violence and revenge," Hossain told the ICT, which was formed after the 1971 war to try those accused of war crimes. "Since no war occurred, the charges based on war crimes and crimes against humanity are inapplicable," he said. Rejecting the arguments, chief prosecutor Tajul Islam said allegations' merits will be assessed during formal trial once ICT decides on framing charges. "I sought discharge from all allegations... as they appear politically motivated," Hossain told reporters, adding he has not been able to contact Hasina directly.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Explained: Law on phone-tapping, and two HC rulings
Can the government tap the phones of suspects to gather evidence before a crime is committed? Last week, in two separate cases, the Madras and the Delhi High Courts gave varying answers to this question. What is the law on phone tapping in India, and how have High Courts interpreted it? The law on tapping The government's powers to intercept communication is laid down in — and circumscribed by — three pieces of legislation. The 140-year-old Telegraph Act was originally meant for intercepting telegrams, but over the years it has been expanded to include telephonic conversations. Section 5(2) of the Act states that both state and central governments can, 'on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety', authorise interception. Given that the right to free speech and the right to privacy are fundamental rights, any encroachment on these rights through surveillance is only permissible on narrow constitutional grounds. These grounds — the interest of the sovereignty, and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence — are enumerated as 'reasonable restrictions' under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 5(2) of the Act also mentions these grounds for authorising interception. For actions to be deemed a threat to 'public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety' and allow for interception, they have to necessarily fall into one of the reasonable restrictions. The High Court rulings Both the Madras and Delhi High Court cases involved 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence', which is one of the valid grounds in law for authorising phone tapping. Both courts separately examined the nature of economic offences to determine if they could be deemed as 'public emergency' or 'public safety.' While the Delhi High Court upheld the interception order, the Madras High Court quashed it. DELHI HC: On June 26, the Delhi High Court rejected the plea of an accused who challenged a trial court's order accepting evidence gathered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through phone-tapping. The case related to the accused allegedly seeking to secure a sub-contract for the redevelopment of the ITPO complex into an Integrated Exhibition-Cum-Convention Centre through corrupt means. In 2017, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had authorised interception of his phone on the suspicion that he was attempting to bribe a public official. Justice Amit Mahajan stated in his order that given the contract was for Rs 2,149.93 crore, 'the economic scale of the offence, in the opinion of this Court, satisfies the threshold of public safety'. 'The threat posed by corruption cannot be understated. Corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy and the same can impact anything from infrastructural development to resource allocation. Corruption by a public servant has far-reaching consequences as it serves to not only erode public trust and cast aspersions on the integrity of public institutions, but also renders the public at large susceptible and vulnerable by threatening the economic safety of the country,' the High Court said. Madras HC: The Madras High Court on July 2 quashed an interception order issued by the MHA in 2011 for intercepting the phone of an accused in a bribery case. The accused was allegedly attempting to pay a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to a senior Income Tax officer to help the accused hide undisclosed taxable income. Justice Anand Venkatesh in his order stated that a 'public emergency' must be construed narrowly. In the petitioner's case, the MHA's objective to deal with tax evasion would not qualify as a 'public emergency' under Section 5(2) of the Act, the court said. The court also flagged in its order a press note that was released by the Press Information Bureau in April 2011, four months before the MHA order, saying that the law does not allow the monitoring of conversations through phone-tapping 'to merely detect tax evasion'. Additionally, the court said that the phone-tap was unlawful since it did not comply with the procedural standards set by the Supreme Court in a 1997 ruling. Once a phone-tap order is declared unlawful, any information gathered through the tap cannot be treated as evidence in a court of law. Procedural norms In its landmark 1997 ruling in People's Union Of Civil Liberties vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. While it upheld the law, the court laid down procedural safeguards for its application. The SC said that an order for phone tapping can be issued only by the home secretary of the state and central governments, and that this power cannot be delegated to officers below the rank of joint secretary. The authorising authority must also consider whether the information could 'reasonably be acquired by other means'. Within two months of ordering a phone tap, a committee comprising the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecom secretary shall review the order. At the state level, the committee shall comprise the chief secretary, law secretary and another member other than the home secretary. The scrutiny by the board has also been included under Rule 419-A (17) of the Telegraph Rules.
