Junior Digest

hjls The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested the chief coordinator of the Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (HGS) for his alleged role in the killing of rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar on Friday.

The arrest comes more than a week after the probe agency revealed that its investigators had found ‘cyber forensic evidence’ against HGS chief Dr. Virendra Singh Tawde. Agency sources said that Tawde was interrogated on Friday evening and was taken into custody at around 8.30 pm. “He (Tawde) will be produced at the designated court in Pune on Saturday,” said a CBI official.

Tawde, a resident of Panvel in Maharashtra, is an ear and throat specialist by profession and had come under the CBI’s scanner during the probe into Dr. Dabholkar’s murder. Sources told dna that a phone used by Tawde had been operational in the area where Dr Dhabolkar was gunned down during his morning walk on the Omkareshwar Bridge in Pune in August 2013. The Bombay High Court had transferred the probe to the CBI on May 9, 2014.

The probe agency conducted raids at the residence of Tawde and claimed to have recovered several mobile phones and SIM cards. According to agency officials, Tawde’s name had cropped up along with another individual identified as Sarang Akolkar – who is believed to be a Sanatan Sanstha activist and has been absconding following his alleged role in the 2009 Goa blast.

Akolkar is also wanted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the Goa blast case and a red-corner notice was also issued against his name by the Interpol. Two suspected members of Sanatan Sanstha were killed in the 2009 blast after a bomb they were carrying on a scooter accidentally went off.

Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, which was formed in October 2002, and Sanatan Sanstha share close ties and have been working together for quite some time now.

CBI sleuths are also looking past activities of Tawde and it is likely that members of the two groups will be questioned by the probe agency soon, sources said.

@Agency report.

The Bombay High Court (HC) will pronounce on June 13 its order on the petition filed by Phantom Films, the makers of the Hindi film, Udta Punjab, challenging the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), suggesting 13 cuts for the film before its release on June 17.

The court came down heavily on the CBFC for suggesting 13 cuts, saying that the Cinematography Act doesn’t have the word ‘censor’, and that CBFC has only to certify the film. “Let the people, who are the best censors, do the censoring,” it said.

A division bench of Justices SC Dharmadhikari and Dr Shalini Phansalkar Joshi told the producers to follow one cut suggested by the Board – a public urination scene.

The producer agreed to it and counsel Ravi Kadam said: “Yes, we will amend this scene, but we don’t agree to the cuts suggesting deletion of cuss words. Many things are an integral part of the film and cannot be removed.”

The producer also agreed to add a disclaimer stating that the makers or the cast of the film do not support the use of expletives.

During the hearing, the court questioned the CBFC why it was suggesting 13 cuts that take away the essence of the film. It said, “Sometimes, to open the eyes of the public to all the menace, you have to be direct. Unless the film does not have (that) content, it will not go forward, the creative minds will learn from their mistakes, why are you worried about this? Being critical will not help, don’t we want creative people to survive and grow?”

The court also refuted the claim of the CBFC that the use of the word Punjab in the film was defaming the state and glorifying the problem of drug abuse there. “It is sometimes required to provoke the audience to convey a message like this, it’s not only that people are abusing drugs; the film will also help NGOs and doctors who are helping there.”

With respect to the language, the court was in agreement with the producer that the words were used to portray the characters. “If two truck drivers are talking to each other, they will surely not use polished language… Even the producer is aware of better language but is conveying a certain character.”

@Agency report.