Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr682c375c26036-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr682c375c26036-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr682c375c26036-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16525,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;crime,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16525,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 16397
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;crime,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br /><br />The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br /><br />Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br /><br />But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br /><br />The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br /><br />If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br /><br />Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br /><br />The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br /><br />The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br /><br />The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr682c375c26036-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr682c375c26036-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr682c375c26036-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16525,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;crime,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16525,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 16397
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;crime,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br /><br />The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br /><br />Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br /><br />But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br /><br />The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br /><br />If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br /><br />Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br /><br />The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br /><br />The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br /><br />The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr682c375c26036-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr682c375c26036-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr682c375c26036-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr682c375c26036-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16525,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;crime,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16397,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 16525,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 16397
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;crime,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan&#039;s border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &amp;quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The state said, &amp;quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &amp;quot;punished&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&amp;quot;, two were &amp;quot;reprimanded&amp;quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &amp;quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &amp;quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&amp;quot; in these cases.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br /><br />The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br /><br />Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br /><br />But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br /><br />The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br /><br />If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br /><br />Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br /><br />The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br /><br />The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br /><br />The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br /><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 16397,
		'title' => 'Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br />
<br />
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br />
<br />
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br />
<br />
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br />
<br />
The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br />
<br />
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br />
<br />
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br />
<br />
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br />
<br />
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br />
<br />
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br />
<br />
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br />
<br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 16525,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 16397,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra',
	'metaKeywords' => 'crime,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br /><br />The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br /><br />Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br /><br />But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br /><br />The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br /><br />If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br /><br />Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br /><br />The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br /><br />The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br /><br />The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br /><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 16397,
	'title' => 'Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br />
<br />
The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br />
<br />
Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br />
<br />
But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br />
<br />
The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br />
<br />
A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br />
<br />
If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br />
<br />
Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br />
<br />
The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br />
<br />
The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br />
<br />
The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br />
<br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 7 August, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-Supreme-Court-told/articleshow/15381755.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'army-officers-involved-in-arms-racket-supreme-court-told-dhananjay-mahapatra-16525',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 16525,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 16397
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra'
$metaKeywords = 'crime,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India

Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types.<br /><br />The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan.<br /><br />Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, &quot;During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light.&quot;<br /><br />But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir.<br /><br />The state said, &quot;104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending.&quot;<br /><br />A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing.<br /><br />If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons.<br /><br />Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were &quot;punished&quot; with &quot;severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500&quot;, two were &quot;reprimanded&quot; and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes.<br /><br />The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with &quot;severe displeasure (non-recordable).<br /><br />The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons.<br /><br />The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and &quot;a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy&quot; in these cases.<br /><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Army officers involved in arms racket, Supreme Court told-Dhananjay Mahapatra

-The Times of India Months after the Army punished 73 officers for illegal sale of their non-service weapons to arms dealers in Rajasthan's border districts, the Supreme Court was told on Monday that Army units deputed in Jammu and Kashmir were found to be involved in 104 cases of sale purchase of weapons of various types. The Army was forced to take action against its officers after the Supreme Court raised security concerns on the basis of a PIL, which had five years ago claimed that a gunrunning racket involving Army officers was rife in the border districts of Rajasthan. Rajasthan police had registered 14 FIRs, of which the one filed by Jaipur anti-corruption bureau on July 18, 2007 pertained to 284 cases. The state government, in its affidavit before the apex court, said, "During investigation, 304 more cases came to light on perusal of records and 41 cases pertaining to licences issued from the state of Punjab came to light." But the shocking part of the affidavit related to involvement of Army units posted in militancy affected Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar districts of Jammu and Kashmir. The state said, "104 cases pertain to Army companies deputed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and in respect whereof, the letters were addressed twice by deputy inspector general of police, ACB Jaipur to district collectors of Kathua, Kupwara and Srinagar. The investigation in that regard is pending." A bench of Justices S S Nijjar and H L Gokhale said it would peruse the affidavits and reports submitted in sealed cover before taking up the PIL for detailed hearing. If Rajasthan detailed the action for prosecution it had taken against its administrative officials in the case of grant of illegal licences involving non-service weapons of Army officials, the Army too detailed the court martial proceedings and punishment given to the 72 officers and a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) found involved in the illegal sale and purchase of non-service weapons. Of the 29 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel, colonel and major found involved in the sale of weapons, 15 were "punished" with "severe reprimand and a fine of Rs 500", two were "reprimanded" and rest were awarded punishment ranging from one to three years loss of service either for promotion or pension purposes. The 25 officers posted in Indian Army Training Team at Bhutan, who were found to have imported ammunition in excess of the authorized 50 rounds, were all let off with "severe displeasure (non-recordable). The PIL filed by advocate Arvind Kumar Sharma had in 2007 alleged that the government had not taken action against Army officers despite the Rajasthan home ministry finding that they were involved in selling their non-service weapons to arms dealers and private persons. The Army inquired into the incidents and told the apex court in 2008 that weapons procured and sold in breach of Army Act and Customs Act were of both prohibited and non-prohibited bore and "a total of 72 officers and one JCO were blameworthy" in these cases.