Travails of displaced tribals of Bastar

An eerie silence welcomes me as I walk down the row of houses, not a soul in sight. I know that from every tiny window in these little brick-walled units, watchful, suspicious eyes follow my every move.

They are assessing me, wondering if I am friend or foe. But then, in these thickly forested parts, the lines of distinction blurred many years ago. And their life could depend on the accuracy of the conclusion they draw about every visitor.

This is life-as-usual in this part of Narayanpur block of the Bastar region in Chhattisgarh, in a settlement locally referred to as mukhbiron ki basti, the Village of Informers. The residents have long stopped fighting the label. If being labelled an informer helps them escape the wretched lives they were leading in their forest dwellings, so be it.

It is also by choice that these wise ancient people, traditional custodians of the forest wealth, have chosen to walk away from their forest homes to live in these tiny isolated dwellings, away from their lands: their only source of sustenance, willing to brave a life of hunger and uncertainty.

Narayanpur block is not where these tribal families hail from; they have travelled from Abujhmarh, the other block in the newly-carved Narayanpur District in south Chhattisgarh, believed to be the stronghold of Maoist presence. Some families have been here for several decades, while others arrived as recently as two months ago.

Why would anyone leave home and lead a life of destitution in these marked areas, vulnerable to attack for taking a stand to not support the Maoists, or worse, being labelled police informers?

Some families moved out of compulsion, explain the villagers, once they accept my presence as safe and come out to meet me. If a family member is picked up by the police for questioning, the entire family is at risk. Many have never been informers, but the label stuck.

The residents recalled a defining moment when the necessity of moving out became evident to the villages at large. This was a few years ago, when the Maoists were on a 'recruitment drive', but it still sends a shiver through the silent, listening group. A few families in some remote villages collectively decided to oppose the recruitment efforts and said so. Shortly after, 26 boys aged 18-25 years of age were executed with the rest of the village forced witnesses to the macabre sight.

The villagers believe that at least 10-15 people from each village have been abducted and subsequently killed, most often claiming that they were accused of passing information to the police. "Life in the village was worsening every day. There were constant threats. People would be roughed up. Hunger is easier to live with than fear and constant dissent," narrated a tribal woman in a tattered sari.

At this point, a man listening quietly so far burst out, "Back home, we were simply not allowed to get on with our daily chores, work in our fields. They would call a meeting and it was compulsory to attend in silence. Asking a question was forbidden. We did not even have the right over our field's produce - it would be taken away by the Maoists.

When we obtained PDS rations from the government, they would take away half of it. After some time, even that source of food grains dried up. What were we to eat?" There was no choice but to move out. The villages in the forest, lament the residents of the settlement, no longer have schools and health services. Gradually, families began to move out. Those who stayed back are either Maoist supporters, they assert, or some who were forced by circumstances to stay back, however reluctantly.

As violence escalated, more families started trickling out of the forests, moving to places that seemed safer. Over the last decade, many such settlements have come up behind Narayanpur town, in open spaces like the hills in the vicinity. Bereft of agricultural land, the people sit idle during the harvesting season.

One of the settlements is, ironically, named Shanti Nagar, the Abode of Peace. It has electricity, school, access roads, even drainage. Many families have settled here. The one factor that unites them is a sense of desolation and loss, and often, antagonism and grief. Their lives may be safer here than in their forest homes, but what does the future have in store from them, landless and unschooled as they are? Who is to blame? Most important, will they be able to return home?

The villagers hesitate to answer. Abhujhmarh, a vast expanse of dense forest never surveyed during any Indian Census, has no functional government presence, limited as they are to Orcha Block and Sonpur Village. Maoist camps are scattered across these forests, some surrounded by landmines and inaccessible even to the tribal groups who have known these forests as their only home for several decades.

Close to these unsecured settlements of alleged informers is a heavily guarded group of 30-40 houses where 'special informers', recognized as Special Police Officers (SPOs) by the State reside. Also locals, they accompany police during their treks, acting as guides in the thick forests. They earn a monthly salary, are trained in use of weapons and are protected. The distinction between the two settlements is stark.

Political will is essential if more such settlements are to be prevented from coming up, so they matter more than mere vote banks.

Judges are deemed to know the law

A court will in general take judicial notice of and apply the law of its own jurisdiction without pleading or proof thereof, the judges being deemed to know the law or at least where it is to be found, 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3 d ed., 1940), 551.

Here is the case:

Leary v. Gledhill

New Jersey Supreme Court

8 N.J. 260 (1951) 84 A.2d 725

Decided: November 26, 1951.

THOMAS A. LEARY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,v. WILLIAM L.GLEDHILL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

On appeal from the Law Division of the Superior Court.

Mr. Charles L. Bertini argued the cause for the appellant.

Mr. Charles H. Roemer appeared for the respondent.

For affirmance -- Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Oliphant, Wachenfeld, Burling and Ackerson. For reversal -- None. The opinion of the court was delivered by Vanderbilt, C.J.

Vanderbilt

[8 NJ Page 262]

From a judgment of the Law Division of the Superior Court entered on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff the defendant appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. We have certified the appeal on our own motion.

The plaintiff and the defendant were friends who had become acquainted while in the military service. They first

[8 NJ Page 263]

met in 1943 and occasionally thereafter through 1945. They corresponded but did not meet again until Christmas, 1948, when the defendant visited the plaintiff in Germany where he was stationed. At that time the defendant was no longer in the military service but was in Europe attempting to sell tractors for the Franam Corporation. Prior to the defendant's trip to Europe he had corresponded with the plaintiff with reference to an investment in the Franam Corporation as one which would be very profitable. Their correspondence resulted in the plaintiff purchasing $1,000 worth of stock when the defendant went to see him in Germany, the defendant delivering to the plaintiff certificates of stock which he had brought with him to Europe in exchange for the plaintiff's check for $1,000.

In April, 1949, the plaintiff at the defendant's invitation visited him in Paris. The defendant had left the United States with $500 in his possession and after arriving in Europe had been in constant need of money to meet his expenses. In a conversation in a hotel in Paris the defendant told the plaintiff that he needed about $4,000 and that he could raise about $2,000 by selling his Cadillac car. In the plaintiff's presence the defendant made a telephone call to his wife in the United States and instructed her to sell the automobile. The defendant asked the plaintiff to help him, but did not mention anything about selling the plaintiff any shares of stock. The plaintiff said he would think it over for a few days and see what he could do. After returning to his base in Germany the plaintiff mailed the defendant a check payable to the defendant's order for $1,500 without indicating on the check or in the accompanying letter what the money was for. The defendant endorsed the check and converted it into traveller's checks. The parties did not see each other again until the day of the trial, although the plaintiff had made many attempts to see the defendant after they both had returned to the United States, seeking him at his home and calling him on the telephone at various times, but always without success.

[8 NJ Page 264]

The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant on two counts, the first for $1,000 and the second for $1,500, but at the outset of the trial the plaintiff moved for a voluntary dismissal of the first count and the pretrial order was amended accordingly. The issue as stated in the amended pretrial order was limited to whether the money given by the plaintiff to the defendant was a loan or an investment in a business venture. At the trial the plaintiff testified that the check for $1,500 was a personal loan to the defendant but this the defendant denied, contending that he had never borrowed any money from the plaintiff. At the end of the plaintiff's case and again at the end of the entire case the defendant moved for an involuntary dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff's proofs were insufficient, there being no promise to repay, no demand for repayment, and no pleading or proof of the law of France where the transaction occurred. These motions were denied, the trial court holding that while it would not take judicial notice of the law of France it would proceed, first, on the presumption that the law involving loans is the same there as in other civilized countries, and, secondly, on the ground that the issue with respect to the law of France had not been set forth in the pretrial order. When the case was submitted to the jury, the defendant objected to the charge on the ground that it did not instruct the jury to find as a fact what the law of France was. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant took this appeal. It is significant that the defendant never proved or even attempted to prove either the delivery of any stock to the plaintiff or a tender thereof. Neither did the defendant attempt to prove or even suggest that the law of France was such as to preclude recovery in the circumstances.

The defendant argues five points on this appeal, none of which has merit:

1. "The motion to dismiss should have been granted where the complaint alleges an express contract of loan and

[8 NJ Page 265]

there is a failure to prove a promise to repay." A loan may be established by a contract implied in fact as well as by an express promise; the only difference between the two is the kind of evidence used to prove the undertaking. At the oral argument the defendant relied on Allen v. Bunting, 18 N.J.L. 299 (Sup. Ct. 1841) holding that a note or a check in the hands of the maker or drawer after payment at the bank, instead of being prima facie evidence of so much money lent, is only prima facie evidence that the maker or drawer was indebted to the payee at the time he gave the note or check and that it was given in satisfaction of that specific debt. It is difficult to see how this ruling as to the prima facie effect of a cancelled check in the plaintiff's hands aids the defendant in view of the testimony given at the trial concerning defendant's need of $4,000 to pay his expenses, his instructions to his wife by trans-Atlantic telephone to sell his Cadillac car for $2,000, and his request to the plaintiff for a loan, followed by the plaintiff's mailing him a check for $1,500. The issue presented by the pretrial order as to whether or not the plaintiff had given the $1,500 to the defendant as a loan was properly presented to the jury which reached a conclusion supported by the evidence before it.

2. "The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the complaint where the plaintiff failed to prove a demand for repayment of the money." This defense comes with bad grace from a defendant who had so assiduously avoided the efforts of the plaintiff to communicate with him, and no authorities to support it are cited by the defendant in his brief nor did he come forward with any at the oral argument. In the circumstances here the starting of suit is all the demand the defendant is entitled to. We consider that the answer to the defendant's contention is well stated in section 264 of the Restatement of Contracts:

"Where a contractual promise to pay money is in terms performable on demand by the promisee, but the duty of performance is otherwise unconditional, and neither more specific words nor usage requires a different result, a right of action by the promisee is not conditional on a demand being made."

[8 NJ Page 266]

3. "The rules of law for a foreign country must be pleaded and proved as facts along with the other elements of a cause of action to enable a plaintiff to recover against the defendant." A court will in general take judicial notice of and apply the law of its own jurisdiction without pleading or proof thereof, the judges being deemed to know the law or at least where it is to be found, 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3 d ed., 1940), 551. Under the common law of England as adopted in this country, however, the law of other countries, including sister states, would not be so noticed and applied by a court, but it was deemed an issue of fact to be pleaded and proved as other material facts had to be, Title Guarantee and Trust Co. v. Trenton Potteries Co., 56 N.J. Eq. 441, 444 (E. & A. 1897); Coryell v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 88 N.J.L. 291, 294 (E. & A. 1915); Fithian v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 91 N.J.L. 275, 279 (E. & A. 1918); Giardini v. McAdoo, 93 N.J.L. 138, 141 (E. & A. 1919); Robins v. Mack International Motor Truck Corp., 113 N.J.L. 377, 387 (E. & A. 1934); Coral Gables, Inc., v. Kretschmer, 116 N.J.L. 580, 582 (E. & A. 1936); Franzen v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 130 N.J.L. 457, 459 (Sup. Ct. 1943); 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3 d ed. 1940), 554. This common law rule had two great disadvantages; it made every jury pass on questions of law quite beyond its competence and the decision of the jury as to the foreign law was unappealable at common law as were its findings on all questions of fact.

The courts, however, were reluctant to dismiss an action for a failure to plead and prove the applicable foreign law as they would have dismissed it for a failure to prove other material facts necessary to establish a cause of action or a defense. Accordingly the courts frequently indulged in one or another of several presumptions: that the common law prevails in the foreign jurisdiction; that the law of the foreign jurisdiction is the same as the law of the forum, be it common law or statute; or that certain fundamental principles of the law exist in all civilized countries. As a fourth alternative, instead of indulging in any presumption as to the law of the

[8 NJ Page 267]

foreign jurisdiction, the courts would merely apply the law of the forum as the only law before the court on the assumption that by failing to prove the foreign law the parties acquiesce in having their controversy determined by reference to the law of the forum, be it statutory or common law. By the application of these various presumptions the courts have in effect treated the common law rule that foreign law could not be noticed but must be pleaded and proved as if it were a matter of fact merely as a permissive rule whereby either party could, if it were to his advantage, plead and prove the foreign law. Thus the failure to plead and prove the foreign law has not generally been considered as fatal. For a thorough discussion of the presumptions applied in the absence of proof of the foreign law see the notes: "How case determined when proper foreign law not proved," 67 L.R.A. 33-61; and "Determination of case properly governed by law of foreign country which is not proved," 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 261-274.

In New Jersey, in the absence of proof as to the applicable foreign law, the courts have frequently applied the presumption that the common law exists in the foreign jurisdiction. This presumption had long been recognized in this State when Chief Justice Beasley said in Waln v. Waln, 53 N.J.L. 429, 432 (E. & A. 1891):

"There was no offer made at the trial to show what the law of Pennsylvania was; and consequently, according to the general rule of law, and which rule has been repeatedly recognized and applied by our own courts, the inference, juris et de jure, is that the system there prevalent was that of the common law."

For more recent New Jersey cases in which this presumption has been applied or recognized see Bodine v. Berg, 82 N.J.L. 662 (E. & A. 1911); Thayer Mercantile Co. v. First National Bank of Milltown, 98 N.J.L. 29, 32 (Sup. Ct. 1922); Reingold v. Reingold, 115 N.J.L. 532, 534 (E. & A. 1935); Coral Gables, Inc., v. Kretschmer, 116 N.J.L. 580, 583 (E. & A. 1936); Redmond v. N.J. Historical Society,

[8 NJ Page 268]

132 N.J. Eq. 464, 469 (E. & A. 1942); Kelly v. Kelly, 134 N.J. Eq. 316, 319 (Prerog. 1944); and Shepherd v. Ward, 5 N.J. 92, 106 (1950). This presumption, insofar as the law of the states, territories and other jurisdictions of the United States is concerned, is reenforced by the first section of the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, L. 1941, c. 81, ? 1, as amended by L. 1942, c. 104, ? 1 (N.J.S.A. 2:98-28).

While our attention has not been directed to any New Jersey cases on the point, this presumption as to the existence of the common law in a foreign jurisdiction is equally applicable in cases involving other common law countries such as England in the absence of proof to the contrary, see note 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 261, 270, cited supra; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, ? 181; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, ? 133, p. 767. That the presumption as to the existence of the common law applies to all common law jurisdictions is further borne out by the fact that by virtue of R.S. 2:98-18, originally enacted by L. 1860, c. 92, ? 1:

"The reports of judicial decisions of other states of the United States and foreign countries may be judicially noticed by the courts of this state as evidence of the common law of such states or countries, * * *."

While the application of the presumption that the common law exists in the foreign jurisdiction works well in many cases, it does not produce sound results in a case where the common law on the subject involved has been substantially changed by statute here and in the foreign state. For example, if a case involved the capacity of a married woman to contract or to hold and convey property, resort to the common law to decide the case might well result in a decision contrary to long established statutory enactments here and in the foreign jurisdiction altering the common law rule. While the presumption as to the existence of the common law in the foreign jurisdiction has the advantages of having been long indulged in by the courts of this and other states and of being incorporated

[8 NJ Page 269]

in the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, in a proper case consideration might well be given to rejecting it in favor of the presumption that the foreign law is the same as the law of the forum, be it statutory or common law, or even more preferable, in favor of the presumption that the parties by their failure to plead and prove the foreign law acquiesce in the application of the law of the forum as the only law before the court.

In the instant case the transaction occurred in France. Our courts may properly take judicial knowledge that France is not a common law, but rather a civil jurisdiction. It would, therefore, be inappropriate and indeed contrary to elementary knowledge to presume that the principles of the common law prevail there. This does not mean, however, that the plaintiff must fail in his cause of action because of the absence of any proof at the trial as to the applicable law of France. In these circumstances any one of the other three presumptions may be indulged in, i.e., that the law of France is the same as the law of the forum; that the law of France, like all civilized countries, recognizes certain fundamental principles, as, e.g., that the taking of a loan creates an obligation upon the borrower to make repayment; that the parties by failing to prove the law of France have acquiesced in having their dispute determined by the law of the forum.

The court below based its decision upon the presumption that the law of France in common with that of other civilized countries recognizes a liability to make repayment under the facts here present, and its decision is not without substantial merit in reason and support in the authorities, see, for example, Cuba Railroad Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473 (1912), and Parrot v. Mexican Central Railway Co., 207 Mass. 184, 93 N.E. 590 (1911). The utilization of this presumption has decided limitations, however, for in many cases it would be difficult to determine whether or not the question presented was of such a fundamental nature as reasonably to warrant the assumption that it would be similarly treated by the laws of all civilized countries. The presumption

[8 NJ Page 270]

that in the absence of proof the parties acquiesce in the application of the law of the forum, be it statutory law or common law, does not present any such difficulties for it may be universally applied regardless of the nature of the controversy. This view, moreover, is favored by the authorities, see the notes in 67 L.R.A. 33 and 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 261, cited supra, and appears to have been followed in at least one instance in this State, Sturm v. Sturm, 111 N.J. Eq. 579, 587 (Ch. 1932), a case in which the law of Austria was involved. We are of the opinion, therefore, that in the instant case the rights of the parties are to be determined by the law of New Jersey which unquestionably permits recovery on the facts proven.

We recognize, of course, that in certain cases there might be present factors which would make it unreasonable for the court to indulge in any presumption and where the court in the exercise of its sound discretion might require proof of applicable foreign law to be laid before the court, but such is certainly not the situation here. The defendant is in no way prejudiced by the application of the law of this State. If he had desired to raise an issue as to the foreign law, he might have done so in his answer or at the pretrial conference or, with permission of the court, at the trial itself, and himself have introduced proof as to the law of France. It is against the letter and the spirit of our practice to permit him to make the failure of the plaintiff to plead and prove foreign law the basis of a surprise motion addressed to the court either in the course of or at the conclusion of the case.

4. "The rules of law of a foreign country are a question of fact to be determined by the jury, along with the other elements of a cause, to enable a plaintiff to recover against a defendant." This contention is without merit here, for in all cases in which the court in the absence of proof indulges in a presumption as to the applicable foreign law the question is perforce one for the court rather than for the jury; see sections 3 and 5 of the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act (N.J.S.A. 2:98-30 and 32) and

[8 NJ Page 271]

Franzen v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 130 N.J.L. 457, 459-461 (Sup. Ct. 1943).

5. "The verdict is against the weight of the evidence." The testimony of the plaintiff and of the defendant was in sharp conflict. The inferences to be drawn were more compatible with the view of the $1,500 being a loan than with its being payment for stock in a business venture. The defendant's need for $4,000, the selling of his automobile to raise $2,000, his requesting the plaintiff for a loan, his failure to deliver any stock to the plaintiff or to tender any, and his evasion of the plaintiff, all conspire to make his story unbelievable. Under our Constitution and the rules of court the verdict of a jury is not to be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless it clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict was the result of mistake, partiality, prejudice or passion. Rule 1:2-20(a).

The judgment below is affirmed.

Public Letter to Prime Minister of India about Investigating Ambani International Loot

Honorable Prime Minister of India, 

Dr. Manmohan Singh, 

Copy to Director CBI, 

Mr. A.P. Singh, 

New Delhi. 

Respected Sir, 

I have proposed in another communication that PMO ought to Knowledge Center within to proactively deal with Political & Executive mischief in dealing with corruption and Corporate Corruption, Hoarding, Environment Issues and Rogue Officers. 

Hamish McDonald has written extensively on Ambani loot in books published in 1998 and 2010, mirror to world. Why can't CBI work on the latest cases of loot? I have provided summary of Ambani Loot with this message. 

It takes only one Step – All the World's knowledge is accessible to Me to PMO & CBI – I am connected PMO & CBI not. Once PMO has the knowledge Center- infrastructure already provided - Every Department shall have it – NGO shall follow PMO than Advani or Sidhu. 

Since 1975 I have 90% success rate – either in Preventing Loot or Predicting Accurately a decade in advance – Narmada Canal Network is Over Designed and huge waste of public money and loot in 1999 – 10 yrs ahead of CAG report that reported just 6.56% new command use. 

We have to Prevent Corruption & Loot – not create 'Prosecution Infrastructure To Deal With Corrupt After Loot' intended by Jan Lokpal. 

KC in PMO for example would have written to DoT a day after June11, 2010 RIL Press Release 'When 4G license acquired by RIL for Rs.4500 crores is more capable than entire Telecom Infrastructure why DOT is promoting investing in out dated technologies?' Could have been - 'Why are Telecoms not utilizing Optic Fiber to full capacity created in 2002 deploying Indigenous Technologies in 2004? At that time Korea Singapore Japan were promoting Optic Fiber technologies. 

I was telling Sub-Inspector I was youngest Junior Engineer selected through UPSC Test made in charge of Biggest Electrical Store in 1976 serving 50% of India but had 100% control over the not just the Store but also controlled DGSD and ISI – anyone whispering in my ears 'Last Consignment of Lamps Burnout in 15 Days' in one second I would add two more words 'Please Issue Good Quality Lamps' – no new order was placed for local companies supplying substandard products after that. 

In doing so I had Virtually Acquired the authority of DG, DGSD, ISI, CE Vigilance, etc. etc. 

In 1975 I applied for Indian Oil contest and next day NRDC for assistance to file patents and commercialization – both released my ideas to others, and I was required to monitor Patent Gazette on regular basis thus acquired knowledge and capability similar to level of Einstein but related to Technologies Projects. 

But was horrified to find matters of KG basin reported to PMO for 3-4 years had made no progress even though full details were provided. About 18 months ago it was Inspector rank officer dealing with it now in new Building it was Sub-Inspector who I believe had invited some official of RIL and was also recording my conversation. 

Why can't CBI assign a number to a Complaint and put it on its website – or let some Associated NGOs do it? 

I told them all my Petitions are circulated to over 25,000 professionals world over. I can operate Official CBI blog to put up all valid and important complaints. 

Promoting RIL presently has become International Tragedy. Coal fired projects being promoted are Most Polluting in the world. 

India is yet to develop 150,000MW of own hydro power and over 80,000 MW over international rivers. Indigenous Mining of Coal that cost $10 per tone is stagnant – corporate to have acquired Indian mines were allowed to invest in foreign mines that shall cost $200 per tone so by 2014 India shall import 180 million tones of coal that may exceed 500 million tones. 

In 24 Hours PMO can be Super Computerized and best in the world. CBI world's best Investigating Agency. 

From the very beginning Dhirubhai Ambani and his sons corrupted and manipulated Indian government is explained in 'The Polyester Prince: The Rise of Dhirubhai Ambani' by Hamish McDonald and its sequels 'Mahabharata in Polyester: The Making of the World's Richest Brothers and Their Feud' and 'Ambani & Sons' from 1999 onwards brothers turned in to Multi Head Monster – last year Makesh & Anil Ambani were worth $45b and $42b Consolidating Equity Holdings to over 50% and equity of Indian small shareholders who filled the stadiums reduced to under 10% in RIL companies and Staff costs are not even 2%, but unlike pre 1999 when units performed at near full capacity, Companies are performing poorly or are Hoarding on Licenses, Resources and Real Estate. 

CAG, TRAI, DGH & Electricity, Mining Regulators were corrupted. Mukesh Ambanis 4G acquisition is not yet under CAG CBI scanner. 

$150b invested or Committed by India In Last 12 Yrs on Ambani Companies yield little benefit.

When PSUs were Vertically Split & Only Allowed Horizontal Expansion – Ambanis Were Allowed Unlimited Unrestricted Vertical & Horizontal Expansions.

RIL Refineries are mainly export oriented contributing little to India, Telecom Companies is under utilized, high cost services are operated, Oil & Gas in spite of 10 times higher capitalization than Petrobras barely contributes 5% of Oil & Gas needs in 12 years. Reliance Wellness or Reliance Retail stores sell most goods at MSP like other shops are mainly Real Estate Investments. Out of 35,000 MW power projects just 600MW has been commissioned by Reliance Power in ten years, out of 95 million tones of Coal Mining projected production there is no production yet from mining leases. 34,000 hectares of SEZ had failed to take off – mainly hoarding program to develop real estate. RIL was caught Re-routing of International Telephone calls as locals, Rigged Electricity Meters programmed to run fast in Delhi. Awarded EPC contracts to China for Power Plants, Gas Pipelines than Indian companies but are still much behind schedule. Consumers are least satisfied with Reliance Electricity Distribution & Telecom Companies. 

Blitz observed: If the allegations against Dhirubhai Ambani and Reliance are proved, whether in the matter of evasion or in the alleged fraud of letters of credit opened with two foreign and three Indian banks for the import of PTA, then the conclusion becomes inescapable that, since 1969, a single industrialist had been literally dictating the government's tex­tile and import policies and maneuvering import rules to 'kill' his rivals and maintain his lead in the market ... The challenge to State Power lies in the accumulated wealth and economic clout in the hands of an individual who is neither an elected representative nor accountable to the people, who could rnanipulate Cabinet ministers as wed as party chiefs. Economic power goes hand in hand with its political counterpart, resulting in manipulating politicians and ministers right to the top of the top. AN this and more has put a new regime seeking to cleanse the Augean stables of the corporate sector in an extremely vulnerable position for its daring to challenge one of the biggest industrial empires with a Rs 27 crore show-cause notice. One can only wish Finance Minister V P Singh good luck with the danda [stick] now that the carrot has been spurned - from Polyester Prince.

1999 onwards Reliance rapidly expanded in to Refineries, Oil & Gas, Power, Telecom, SEZs, Retail, Infrastructure, Insurance, Capital, Healthcare, Entertainment in addition to Textiles, Petrochemicals, etc. 

Reliance consolidated promoters equity, acquired licenses, Hoarded on to land, mining leases, Oil & Gas blocks and invested in foreign countries. 

Oil & Gas - $500b Production Loss 

1. RIL Operates 29 Blocks in India and 13 Overseas –Brazil licensed a 13,000 sq.mt block to 13 private companies for off shore exploration RIL acquired 25 blocks by 2001 when it had no off shore experience by engaging hiring NIKO, HEPI and HARDY for the purpose of Acquiring & Hoarding Oil & Gas blocks. 

Though it made World's biggest discovery of 2001 that RIL claimed was 40 times larger than Bombay High of ONGC but still it made no efforts to developed it and instead invested in Two Refineries that were executed speedily than VITAL Offshore 25 Blocks in 2001 to 29 blocks now. 

2. GSPC too made Biggest Discovery in 2005 like in RIL case in very first well – but didn't invest in developing the Oil & Gas at Deendyal Block acquired in NEPL III in 2001 – Gujarat backed down to let RIL monopolize the Oil & Gas operations. This discovery within 20-30 kilometers adjacent to KG D6 could have been directly connected to onshore separation & dehydration process of CNG for pumping it to destinations. 

Both RIL & GSPC without drilling rigs commenced exploration two to four years after acquiring blocks in 1999 and 2001 NEPL bids. 

RIL awarded Turn Key contract to develop KG D6 to Bechtel only in 2006, five years after discovery and seven years after NEPL-I that was commissioned in April2009. Instead of 200 MSCMD of natural gas and plus some million tones of Crude Oil India get just 41 MSCMD of gas as per latest quarterly report and little crude oil. India could have been self sufficient in Oil & Gas by 2005 and saved $500b worth petroleum imports. 

3. When GAIL out to have laid Common Coastal Gas Pipeline from 1999 onwards, for all the licenses RIL corrupted DGH in to not considering CCGP and let RIL have its own Gas Pipeline that was built by Chinese from 2007, (six years after discovery and 8 years after NEPL I) to be ready by 2009 – this too discouraged other Oil & Gas operators from investing in Oil & Gas blocks. 

4. When Brazil operated around 20 Offshore Drilling rigs in a Block leased to 13 companies RIL operated just one Drilling Rig for a while recently and hired just three rigs for 29 blocks December2011 onwards – and these too are Most Expensive over $0.510m per day rent when ONGC hired 7-9 rigs of various sizes at $0.140m average cost. (Copy Attached) 

5. RIL had claimed to have discovered 40 times more gas at KG D6 than ONGC and it shall double Natural Gas production, would supply gas for a Century and shall be operational in 30 months from October31, 2002 but commenced production after 77 months from 2002 or 113 months after NEPL-I. Since RIL was allocated KG D6 in 1999 and till October31, 2002 it had developed just Three Wells but your government allocated 25 Blocs to RIL in NEPL I. II and III. Four Telecom Companies – High Cost Services, Low Utilization, Poor Service 1.23m Land Lines, 135m Wireless, 2.1m Internet Subscribers

5. Ambanis operated two Telecom Companies in 2001-02 itself as per AR Page 44 i.e. Reliance Telecom and Reliance Infocomm, licensed to operate 2G CDMA, GSM, Land Lines, WLL, Internet, Broadband, Optic Fibre, IPTV, VOIP, DTH, Cable TV etc. but it preferred Most Expensive Mobile Phone based services that relied on 97% foreign hardaware. (Secretary Telecom pointed out our hardware content in mobile phones is just 3% while releasing report on Mobile Handsets.) Ambanis, through backdoor acquired SWAN Telecom 2008 and Infotel Broad Band 2010 for 3G and 4G services. 

As per detailed TRAI Performance indicator – Reliance operated just 1.23 million land lines out of 34.73m. just 3%, operated 135m wireless subscribers out of 811m, over all served 16.18% of Telephone subscribers. 

http://adf.ly/3l2JE

6. Reliance Infocomm owned over 2,70,000 kilometers of Optic Fibre terabit network alone capable serving over 200 million Broad Band connections i.e. every household in India but Reliance served just 2173463 internet connections or just 1% of potential out of 19674983, 11% share – just 2m out of 20m. BSNL operated 11316919 Internet connections or 57% in India. 

Most of the Optic Fibre network was laid in Metros in 2002 itself or Metros could have World Class broad bank services for 10 years. During the year, RIL acquired a 95% stake in Infotel Broadband Services Limited, which emerged as a successful bidder in all the 22 circles of the auction for Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) spectrum conducted by the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India. RIL has invested Rs. 4,201.64 crore by way of subscription to equity capital issued by Infotel Broadband.' RIL AR 2010-11 Page 19. http://adf.ly/3l2Lk

RIL sees the broadband opportunity as a new frontier of knowledge economy in which it can take a leadership position and provide India with an opportunity to be in the forefront among the countries providing world-class 4G network and services. A single 20 MHz TDD spectrum when used with LTE (Long Term Evolution) has the potential of providing greater capacity when compared to existing communication infrastructure in the country.

7. CAG Manipulated 2G Loss Figures – is illustrated by two important statements – 4G services across 22 circles for Rs.4500 crores as license fee has greater capacity than prevailing Communications Infrastructure. 

8. CAG maliciously with political motive implicated PM, Home Minister and Finance Minister in recent letters & communications also. Reliance Added Just 600MW of 35,000MW in 10Yrs

9. RIL tookover BSES (Reliance Power) in 2001 in latest AR2010-11 in a para admits it commissioned just 600MW out of 35,000MW and mining leases with 95 million tones capacity are not producing any coal. "The Company is in the business of setting up and operating power projects and in the development of coal mines associated with such projects. The Company has identified a large portfolio of power projects of more than 35,000 MW and is also developing coal mines with a potential to produce over 95 million tonnes of coal per annum (MTPA). Of the power projects which the Company is developing 600 MW are already operational while the balance capacities are under various stages of development". BSES Rs.3000 Cr Loot in 2000-01

10. BSES in 2000-01 purchased electricity worth Rs.1005 crores and I found out of MERC case at Rs.1.77 per unit (NTPC generation cost then was 0.93p per unit) or 568 crore units, BSES own generation at Dahanu was 362 crore units "so availability was 930 crore units but BSES declared sales of 541 crore units. On sale of 541 crore units input energy required to cover 12% T&D losses, 3% HT losses, auxiliary losses of 6% was around 630 crore units "so clearly BSES UNDER DECLARED 300 crore units sales of electricity that delivered to Industries would be worth Rs.1,800 crores. 

This is over and above Profits Declared by BSES that year was Rs.321 crores, so gross LOOT was Rs.2121 crores. Considering NTPC would have supplied 541 crore units at under Rs.800 crores, add Staff cost of Rs.122 crores, Dividend of Rs.60 crores and Rs.112 crores for O&M adds up to Rs.1100 crores but Energy Sales was Rs.2158 crores. All this adds up to Rs.3000 crores annual loot. 

[Source of this Loot was 50% increase in power tariff in Maharashtra State in 1996 primarily for MSEB serving large state with over 30% T&D losses and Agricultural load but BSES applied this tariff to its licensed area when T&D losses in BSES area of Mumbai were 12% and there was no farming load and from 1995 commissioned 500MW own power generation.] Energy Imports to Exceed $400b by 2020 Doubling GHG

11. Private Companies have taken over Coal Mining leases in India & Foreign countries but not working on India with potential to produce 300 million tons annual potential leading to critical shortages. Mining cost in India is $10 to $20 per tone, imported Coal though superior cost 10 times more – by 2014 India is to import 180 million tones of coal. 

Energy Imports Coal, Oil & Gas by 2020 may exceed $400b annually. India required just about $400b to install 200,000MW of Hydro Power projects, having 500 BCM storages on Indian Rivers providing flood protection and irrigation supplies doubling food production and also 60,000MW Nuclear Power. 34,000 Hectare SEZ Loot Program

12. RIL spear headed SEZ loot prog acquiring prime land in Mumbai and Delhi suburbs – 34,000 Hectares or 85,000 acres at Rs.50 crore per acre developed real estate is Rs. 42,50,000 crore business value – this is Rs.20,00,000 crore loot. 

Reliance Power also grabbed 2500 acres of land for Gas Power Project for 3500MW to 10,000 MW that required just about 350 acres of land. Call Re-Routing & Rigged Electricity Meters

13. Ambani Group Company used Nokia Technology explained in US Patent 7120441 to cheat PSU Telecoms re-routing ISD calls as locals and abused GE technology described in USP 6459258 by installing Programmable Most Expensive Meters purchased on consumers account. GE patent describes technology of installing two programs in computerized meters – one operating and other for reference – whenever Meters developed problems operating program was replaced by reference program but Reliance companies installed two or more programs one accurate and others fast.

IN PAST DECADE, SOME 250,000 CHILDREN SEXUALLY ABUSED

At least 250,000 minors have been sexually abused in Turkey over the past decade, with 7,000 raped in 2010 alone, daily Milliyet reports quoting a survey conducted by a prominent Turkish researcher. The research by Tuncer Gunay also revealed that some 350,000 to 400,000 children are thought to have been sexually abused over the past 20 years by first-degree relatives or other close kin. Of these incidents, just 600 were referred to the country's courts.

Mistreatment of minors seems to have been harshest on Turkey's streets, with 30,000 of 50,000 homeless children reportedly having been either raped or sexually abused. Last year, some 4,000 street children were sentenced and sent to correctional facilities, where 250 juveniles over the past five years have reported being raped by their peers or older inmates, Gunay said in his research. Seventy-five percent of all street children have some kind of police record for committing crimes such as theft, extortion, causing personal injury or rape. 

The well-known researcher, who is working on a book to be published this year about child sexual abuse in Turkey, compiled his survey using various official studies and reports, including data obtained from the Police Department Headquarters, figures disclosed in various panel discussions, newspaper archives and reports from the Social Services and Child Protection Agency, or SHCEK. Figures extracted from a report prepared by the Police Department Headquarters revealed that women were the victims in the majority - 71% - of all cases of sexual assault in 2010. Of the rest, 17% were children and 12% were men. The survey by Gunay also showed that access to 23,000 porn sites, of which 15,000 dealt in child pornography, was barred in 2010 by units responsible for information technologies and telecommunications monitoring. More information, click at http://adf.ly/3jdj2

procedures of arrest and criminal prosecution in U.S. legal system

There's a link to this entire case at the end of this quote. Quite apart from the Constitution, therefore, we are constrained to hold that the evidence elicited from the petitioners in the circumstances disclosed here must be excluded. For in their treatment of the petitioners the arresting officers assumed functions which Congress has 342*342 explicitly denied them. They subjected the accused to the pressures of a procedure which is wholly  incompatible with the vital but very restricted duties of the investigating and arresting officers of the Government and which tends to undermine the integrity of the criminal proceeding. Congress has explicitly commanded that "It shall be the duty of the marshal, his deputy, or other officer, who may arrest a person charged with any crime or offense, to take the defendant before the nearest United States commissioner or the nearest judicial officer having jurisdiction under existing laws for a hearing, commitment, or taking bail for trial . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 595. Similarly, the Act of June 18, 1934, c. 595, 48 Stat. 1008, 5 U.S.C. § 300a, authorizing officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to make arrests, requires that "the person arrested shall be immediately taken before a committing officer." 

Compare also the Act of March 1, 1879, c. 125, 20 Stat. 327, 341, 18 U.S.C. § 593, which provides that when arrests are made of persons in the act of operating an illicit distillery, the arrested persons shall be taken forthwith before some judicial officer residing in the county where the arrests were made, or if none, in the county nearest to the place of arrest. Similar legislation, requiring that arrested persons be promptly taken before a committing authority, appears on the statute books of nearly all the states. Klik this link : http://adf.ly/3iAnd

The purpose of this impressively pervasive requirement of criminal procedure is plain. A democratic society, in which respect for the dignity of all men is central, naturally guards against the misuse of the law enforcement process. Zeal in tracking down crime is not in itself an assurance of soberness of judgment.

Disinterestedness in law enforcement does not alone prevent disregard of cherished liberties. Experience has therefore counseled that safeguards must be provided against the dangers of the overzealous as well as the despotic. The awful instruments of the criminal law cannot be entrusted to a single functionary. 

The complicated process of criminal justice is therefore divided into different parts, responsibility for which is separately vested in the various participants upon whom the criminal law relies for its vindication. Legislation 344*344 such as this, requiring that the police must with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining arrested persons, constitutes an important safeguard — not only in assuring protection for the innocent but also in securing conviction of the guilty by methods that commend themselves to a progressive and self-confident society. For this procedural requirement checks resort to those reprehensible practices known as the "third degree" which, though universally rejected as indefensible, still find their way into use. It aims to avoid all the evil implications of secret interrogation of persons accused of crime. It reflects not a sentimental but a sturdy view of law enforcement. It outlaws easy but self-defeating ways in which brutality is substituted for brains as an instrument of crime detection. You can read at : http://adf.ly/3iB2p

A statute carrying such purposes is expressive of a general legislative policy to which courts should not be heedless when appropriate situations call for its application. The circumstances in which the statements admitted in evidence against the petitioners were secured reveal a plain disregard of the duty enjoined by Congress upon federal law officers. 

Freeman and Raymond McNabb were arrested in the middle of the night at their home. Instead of being brought before a United States commissioner or a judicial officer, as the law requires, in order to determine the sufficiency of the justification for their detention, 345*345 they were put in a barren cell and kept there for fourteen hours. For two days they were subjected to unremitting questioning by numerous officers. Benjamin's confession was secured by detaining him unlawfully and questioning him continuously for five or six hours. 

The McNabbs had to submit to all this without the aid of friends or the benefit of counsel. The record leaves no room for doubt that the questioning of the petitioners took place while they were in the custody of the arresting officers and before any order of commitment was made. Plainly, a conviction resting on evidence secured through such a flagrant disregard of the procedure which Congress has commanded cannot be allowed to stand without making the courts themselves accomplices in willful disobedience of law. 

Congress has not explicitly forbidden the use of evidence so procured. But to permit such evidence to be made the basis of a conviction in the federal courts would stultify the policy which Congress has enacted into law. To perfect your knowledge, please read here.