Res­i­dents blink head­lights at plaza to protest pay­ing toll

Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - HT Navi Mumbai Live - - NAVI - Megha Pol megha.pol@hin­dus­tan­

In or­der to protest against toll im­posed at var­i­ous en­try and exit points of the city, Thane com­muters have de­cided to flash the head­lights of their ve­hi­cles at all toll plazas from Fri­day.

Over two lakh peo­ple, in­clud­ing res­i­dents, NGOs and of­fice­go­ers have joined hands to op­pose the tax and have also taken to so­cial me­dia to spread the word. Sources said more than 500 ve­hi­cles blinked their head­lights at toll plazas on Fri­day.

They are de­mand­ing that the toll plazas be closed be­fore the up­com­ing civic polls.

The move­ment is sup­ported by over 50 hous­ing so­ci­eties, In­dian Med­i­cal As­so­ci­a­tion, the Thane Cit­i­zens Foun­da­tion, Ro­tary and Lions club, in­dus­trial or­gan­i­sa­tions from Thane, Kalyan, Dom­bivli and Navi Mum­bai. Over 50,000 mem­bers of Hi­ranan­dani Es­tate Res­i­dent Wel­fare As­so­ci­a­tion are also par­tic­i­pat­ing in the protest.

Kas­ber Au­gus­tine, con­vener of Thane Cit­i­zens’ Foun­da­tion, said, “Most res­i­dents com­mute to Mum­bai, Thane and Navi Mum­bai daily. They will have to pay toll at the en­try and exit points of all these cities.”

She added, “We de­mand that toll be abol­ished. We are cre­at­ing aware­ness through Face­book, Twit­ter and What­sApp. We have over two lakh peo­ple sup­port­ing this move­ment.”

Dur­ing the poll cam­paign, the BJP had as­sured that tolls at var­i­ous places across the states would no longer be levied. Au­gus­tine said, “The hous­ing so­ci­eties will put up posters. We have also dis­trib­uted over 20,000 stick­ers to mo­torists, ap­peal­ing them to join the move­ment.”

A 36-year-old wo­man from Bhi­wandi, who was found guilty of pos­sess­ing coun­ter­feit In­dian cur­rency notes, has been sen­tenced to four-year rig­or­ous im­pris­on­ment by a dis­trict court.

Thane Dis­trict Judge A S Bhais­rae awarded the sen­tence to Shehna­jbano Kam­rud­din Khan, a res­i­dent of Gaib­i­na­gar, re­cently. The court, how­ever, ac­quit­ted an­other ac­cused Mo­ham­mad Is­lam An­war Hus­sain An­sari, 25, for want of ev­i­dence against him giv­ing him the ben­e­fit of doubt.

The judge also slapped a fine of Rs1,000 on Shehna­jbano, be­sides award­ing an ad­di­tional three-month sen­tence after she was found guilty for of­fences pun­ish­able un­der sec­tions 489 (B) and 489 (C) of the IPC.

The pros­e­cu­tion told the court that that she went to the branch of Bom­bay Mer­can­tile Bank on Oc­to­ber 15, 2013, to de­posit Rs50,000 com­pris­ing notes of Rs100 and Rs500 de­nom­i­na­tion.

The cashier on the counter sus­pected them to be fake and sought the as­sis­tance of his man­ager for a check. It was found that all the 54 notes that she had were fake. The mat­ter was re­ported to Kumb­har­wada po­lice who ar­rested the wo­man, the court was told.

The ac­cused told the court that she was il­lit­er­ate and had given the money for depositing in the bank and after an hour the po­lice ar­rested her.

The fake notes were sent to the cur­rency press at Nashik which in its re­port con­firmed that these were coun­ter­feits.

The judge, in his or­der, noted that the ac­cused had ac­counts with dif­fer­ent banks and hence it can be con­cluded that she was hav­ing bank­ing knowl­edge.

“There is no ma­te­rial on record to show that at any point of time, prior to this in­ci­dent, the ac­cused had de­posited such a huge amount in bank. She might have mixed the coun­ter­feit notes in gen­uine notes and had tried to de­posit the same in the bank. There­fore, it can safely be said that she was hav­ing knowl­edge that those 54 notes of Rs500/ Rs100 were fake. The series of notes and note num­bers were also found to be dif­fer­ent. There­fore, it can be in­ferred that the ac­cused had in­ten­tion to pass off the fake notes as gen­uine,” the or­der said.

Us­ing coun­ter­feit notes in the mar­ket, rather in the present case, in the bank, is noth­ing but to dis­turb the econ­omy of the na­tion, the judge said.

The ac­cused is not en­ti­tled for any le­niency. She is not en­ti­tled to ben­e­fit of Pro­ba­tion of Of­fender’s Act, un­der the Bom­bay Pro­ba­tion of Of­fender’s Act, 1958, the or­der said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.