Ravi Kapoor, an activist from Bhayender, says that it is nothing but systematic harassment to citizens who dare to complain against a corrupt police officer
When you complain about corruption to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), be prepared to be the victim of harassment. You must be sure not to rest thinking that the government will do everything to punish the guilty. Even if there is an arrest of the guilty person, there can be harassment from others in the system that is supporting the man who is caught. Mahesh Girme, Assistant Police Inspector of Dahisar Police station was arrested on a complaint to ACB (Worli) in Mumbai for taking a bribe of Rs11,000. And that was the beginning of more trouble for Ravi Kapoor, the man who had complained against Mr Girme.
Ravi Kapoor, an activist from Bhayender (near Mumbai), complained against Mr Girme, Assistant Police Inspector of Dahisar Police station (State registered FIR No.12 of 2013 under Prevention of Corruption Act).
As a resident of Bhayender (around 60 kilometres from office of ACB-Worli), Kapoor has to start his journey at around 5:30am to reach ACB office at 9:00am. He was kept waiting for around four to six hours then without doing any fruitful work on 1 April 2013. He was asked to re-visit next day then the same was repeated again. It is nothing but systematic harassment to citizens who dare to complain against a corrupt police officer. The whistleblower should be give fair treatment; instead he is harassed.
Kapoor claims that he has been informed on condition of anonymity by a senior police officer that Mr Girme and Mohan Patil (ACP, ACB-Worli) are good friends and hence there is the possibility that Mr Patil has tried to weaken the case to protect Mr Girme.
When Kapoor was called inside Mr Patil’s office, he says that Mr Patil took his voice recording, and this was completed at around 5pm on the same day. Then, Mr Patil ordered Kapoor to re-visit him on next day at 11am. On 2 April 2013, Kapoor, along with social worker, Reshma, reached ACB office at around 10.45am. They were kept waiting and then called and asked to come again at 11am on next day. On 3 April 2013 the two of them reached at 11am, they were kept waiting for around three hours thirty minutes and then called into the office. Mr Patil recorded only the statement of the social worker which was over in ten minutes. She is a witness, according to Kapoor in the bribe case.
On 4 April 2013, Kapoor reached ACB-Worli office at 11 am, and he was kept waiting till 5pm. Kapoor complains, “Mohan Patil, ACP-ACB asked me some questions such as the postal address of my native place, and also some irrelevant questions like what I have done for the last 18 years in Mumbai city. Mr Patil asked me to produce the address, names, details of merchants with whom I had done cloth business in the year 1995-96. I said that there is no connection in asking me such stupid and irrelevant questions. Finally I left his office at 5pm.”
Kapoor adds that Reshma received a phone call on her mobile on 5 April 2013 from a land line number of Dahisar Police station. The caller introduced himself as a police constable speaking on behalf of his superior, Mr Rane. Mr Rane wanted to know why there was a compliant made to higher authorities when the matter could be resolved by him. Mr Rane joked, “Why are you not complaining against IPS & IAS officers who are taking bribes for lucrative postings in the police department.”
The phone call ended with a request to visit Mr Rane at Dahisar Police station to settle the matter and to give further statements in favour of Mr Girme before the ACB.
Kapoor adds that in this connection, he has already written a letter to the home minister copy to Mumbai Police Commissioner on 4 April 2013.
Kapoor has concluded his complaint to Moneylife with the request, “Take appropriate departmental action, and as deemed fit on merits, against the guilty police constable. He has not made an entry in the Police Station dairy for the phone call to Reshma on her mobile.”
MCX is sending trade alerts confirmations to all end clients on a daily basis through SMS on their mobile numbers and email IDs updated in its UCC
Multi Commodity Exchange, the largest commodity exchange in India said it has implemented a system where only clients with updated mobile numbers in its unique client code (UCC) would be able to place orders in its trading system.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements of Forward Markets Commission (FMC), trade alerts confirmations are sent to all end clients on a daily basis through SMS on their mobile numbers registered in UCC, the exchange said in a release.
MCX said, “Such trade alert confirmations through SMS and email will enable clients to verify trades with the contract note they receive from their brokers. This will also alert clients the next day about trades taking place in their respective accounts.”
The Bombay High Court has asked SEBI to file its reply on a PIL filed by Indian Council of Investors. The PIL alleged that SEBI is seeking CDRs of 2,327 subscribers from telephone companies without any authority or permission
The Bombay High Court has asked the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to file within three weeks its reply for seeking call data records (CDRs) of 2,327 subscribers from various telecom operators.
Hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Indian Council of Investors, the HC on 3 April 2013 directed SEBI to file its reply within three weeks. The PIL filed in March, seeks to restrain SEBI from asking for CDR data from telephone companies.
Under the Indian Telegraph Act, only certain specific law enforcement agencies are authorised by the ministry of home affairs for interception, monitoring as well as collection of CDRs and SEBI does not figure in the list of such authorised agencies. "However, SEBI has been continuously and frequently asking for CDRs from telecom operators in the past also having no legal authority to do so,” the PIL stated.
Earlier in November 2012, finance minister P Chidambaram had said that the government was arranging for SEBI getting access to CDRs of people being probed by the market regulator in specific cases. He, however, made it clear that SEBI would not get powers to directly tap phone calls.
The PIL alleged that SEBI has been seeking CDRs since 2009 but several agencies like Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had turned down the request.
The market regulator also declined to provide details of CDRs it was seeking when an activist filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. On 21 September 2010, SEBI's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) refused to provide the information citing it as “strategic information”, which is exempted from the RTI disclosures, the PIL said.
SEBI's First Appellate Authority (FAA), however, directed the CPIO to provide the information. On 7 December 2010, the CPIO informed the applicant that SEBI had sought CDRs of 13 numbers and out of this, it was waiting for CDRs of five numbers from telephone services providers. After another application under the RTI, the CPIO admitted that SEBI was seeking CDRs of 2,327 subscribers.
After this reply, the Indian Council of Investors filed a PIL in the high court.