Staff Reporter

Shillong, Sept 21: Deputy Chief Minister in-charge Home (Police) Prestone Tynsong today informed that an investigation is on into the gunning down of a trucker by the BSF personnel at Mawshun village on May 5, this year.

Replying to a zero-hour notice moved by NPP legislator from Sohra Gavin Miguel Mylliem in the Assembly, Tynsong said that there are two FIRs being filed on the incident.

On May 5, 2023, at around 10.24 pm, an incident occurred in which (L) Running Nongkynrih of Jalynteng, driver of the truck (ML 05F 3885) was fired upon by a BSF personnel at Mawshun village near petrol pump, NH-40 (Shillong-Dawki Road, Pynursla.

Due to the firing incident, the driver succumbed to his injuries and died on the spot.

He said one FIR was filed by a relative of the deceased, Riverskhem Nongkynrih and another FIR was filed by the BSF against the deceased person at the Pynursla police station.

“The investigation of both the cases is ensuing, and the police officials are putting in sincere efforts to ascertain the facts and circumstances of both the cases,” Tynsong said.

He said that no one was arrested in connection with the instant case.

As per the report filed by Riverskhem, it was intimated that the complainant and his cousin’s brother, the deceased person, were proceeding from Umthli village to transport buffaloes to their owner’s shed and on reaching near Mawshun village, the deceased person took a right turn in order to unload the buffaloes. However, during that time a mini truck of BSF was also following them from behind and suddenly without any warning the BSF personnel rushed towards the complainant and the victim and started firing, as a result of which the victim collapsed.

In its counter FIR filed against the deceased driver (L) Running Nongkynrih, the BSF said that on the night of May 5, 2023, the mobile check post (MCP) party of ‘G’ Company, 4 Battalion Border Security Force deployed for duty at Pynursla-Dawki road near Wahkdait village, had cautioned the driver to stop for checking.

Instead of stopping, the driver tried to escape by hitting and running over the BSF personnel on duty.

The personnel on duty sensing danger, had fired 2 rounds in the air at an interval, but the driver did not stop and tried to hit the personnel on duty.

Seeing an imminent threat to his life the personnel again fired one round towards the tyre of the truck with the intention to stop the vehicle, but the driver turned his vehicle towards the left and collided with the divider.

Tynsong said that the gunning down of the victim had sparked the ire of the local populace and a law and order situation had arisen.

“In view of the tense situation in the area, security has been tightened and Meghalaya police is keeping a close watch on the situation,” he said while informing that as of now the situation is normal in the area.

Staff Reporter

Shillong, Sept 20: Opposition AITC leader and former chief minister Mukul Sangma today said he has done his job by alerting the chief minister Conrad K Sangma with regards to the drug kingpin from Mizoram. According to him, it is now up to the chief minister to take cognizance of the matter.

This came after Assembly Speaker Thomas A Sangma had expunged Mukul’s statement alleging Conrad of having a close association with a drug kingpin from Mizoram. Mukul had on Tuesday presented a photograph of Conrad, his wife and Henry Lalremsanga, who was arrested on April 23, 2013, in connection with the seizure of Rs six crore worth of banned pseudoephedrine tablets.

Speaking to reporters, Mukul claimed that in fact, he had been quite helpful in alerting the chief minister by giving him this kind of information (about  Henry), lest he might have not seen that news (published in 2013).

“Why should it be considered offensive? I’m sure everybody who knows the gentleman also will agree with me that I have come to know yesterday after I shared this vital Information in the August House that the person concerned whose picture I have shared is somebody who frequents the state,” he said while adding “Therefore, my job is done now. It is his (Conrad) job to utilize his wisdom and judgment.”

The former chief minister however expressed surprise to see how the government was navigating the whole narrative and defensive they have suddenly become accusing him instead of pointing a finger at the chief minister.

“I never said he (Conrad) he has a nexus but I have definitely say that the person concerned who have the privilege of sharing in that sitting arrangement in one of the very important program at the national capital is reflective of his mutual association with the person concerned,” he said adding “I am also told that yes this association is part and parcel, so therefore I am again in the House today I have said, yes my job is to caution you, I think now it’s the people who should tell him in addition to what I have said.”

He further added, “In yesterday’s proceedings, I have cautioned and I have advised the CM to see that he disassociate (with Henry) so that is my advice and I have also said, I’m sure you won’t get offended because I am suggesting that the chief minister should be disassociate his association since in view of what was carried by the national media. I feel that he should.”

On CM asking him to do research on the status of the case against Henry, Mukul however said, “That is my prerogative and it is also his (CM) responsibility to find out. He should rather go after the man and find out what exactly has happened to the case and is he still in any way directly or indirectly associating with other friends because it is not only one person along with that person there’s other persons from Delhi, whether they are still in those kinds of activity or not. It is up to the CM, he has all the ways and means to find out, he can just write to the government of India to the concerned authorities and find out.”

“I have said to put a scanner in view of what is happening. How do you interpret it? This interpretation is simple: any layman will understand what Dr. Mukul Sangma has suggested,” he stated.

As many as nine states, including Telangana and Meghalaya, have withdrawn the general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing certain offences.

The information was disclosed by Union Minister Jitendra Singh during the winter session of the Parliament in December 2022.

The minister informed the House that as per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the CBI requires the consent of the respective state governments to conduct investigations in their jurisdiction.

The state governments had granted general consent to the CBI for the investigation of a specified class of offences against specified categories of persons, enabling the agency to register and investigate those specified matters, Singh elaborated. However, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, and West Bengal have withdrawn the general consent to the CBI to investigate cases. This move could potentially create roadblocks for the CBI to investigate cases in these states.

Non-BJP-ruled states have accused the CBI of “selectively targeting” Opposition leaders.

The withdrawal of consent could also affect the CBI’s ability to investigate cases that have national significance or interstate ramifications. It remains to be seen how the CBI will navigate these challenges and continue to discharge its duties effectively.

This development highlights the need for a comprehensive review of the DSPE Act, 1946, and its provisions related to the CBI’s jurisdiction and powers.

In March this year, a Parliamentary Committee emphasised the withdrawal of general consent for the CBI probe by several states and stated that the existing law governing the federal probe agency has “several limitations”.

The committee has suggested the need to enact new legislation that defines the CBI’s status, functions, and powers.

“The Committee feels that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has many limitations and therefore, recommends that there is a need to enact a new law and define the status, functions and powers of the CBI and also lay down safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in its functioning,” it said.

Rudra Vikram Singh, Supreme Court lawyer said that withdrawal of general consent means CBI does not have the general consent of a state government, it is required to apply for consent on a case-by-case basis and cannot act before the consent is given.

“However CBI can continue to investigate cases in a state registered prior to the withdrawal of general consent. In July 2022, the Calcutta High Court, in a case of illegal coal mining and cattle smuggling being investigated by the CBI, ruled that the central agency cannot be stopped from investigating a Central government employee in another state,” said Singh.

“In its order, the High Court observed that corruption cases across the country must be treated equally and that Central government employees could not be exempted from an investigation on the grounds that their offices were located in states that have withdrawn general consent. The judgment also said that withdrawal of general consent and its ramifications would be applicable in cases where exclusively state government employees were involved,” he added.

This order, however, has been challenged in the Supreme Court, where the matter is still pending. Hence, as it stands, the CBI can use the Calcutta High Court order to its advantage to carry on certain investigations until the order is struck down by the Supreme Court.

Gurmeet Nehra, legal scholar and member of the Supreme Court Bar Association said that CBI can approach the local court of that state for issuing a search warrant and it can register a case in Delhi and proceed with the investigation.