 |
|
Gutkha barons on Interpol’s ‘wanted’ list New Delhi, January 24 According to CBI sources, the Interpol Red Corner notice was issued recently after the Mumbai police handed over the non-bailable warrants against the two by a Mumbai court to the CBI. The offences listed against the two in the Red Corner notice said that the duo were wanted in Mumbai for extortion and organised crime. The warrants had been sought under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) following which Dhariwal filed an application for its cancellation but his lawyers failed to turn up in the court. The two businessmen, understood to be in UAE, were earlier asked to appear before police for an enquiry over their alleged links with underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim. They, however, failed to appear and Dhariwal, in a statement, had said that he was willing to be questioned through video-conferencing. Mumbai: The prosecution today filed its charge-sheet in the sensational gutkha case against two persons in a MCOCA court here and named underworld don Dawood Ibrahim’s brother and his aide wanted accused, but the names of two leading gutkha manufacturers do not figure in it. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal, owner of Manikchand Gutkha, and Jagdish M. Joshi, proprietor of Goa Gutkha, against whom non-bailable warrants were issued by MCOCA Judge Ashok Bhangale last month for their alleged nexus with the underworld, do not figure in the over 200-page charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet, cases were filed under 120 (b) conspiracy, 384, 387 (extortion) of Indian Penal code (IPC) and 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 4 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against — Jamiruddin Gulam Rasul Ansari alias Jumbo and Rajesh Laxminarayan Pancariya, who were arrested on October 10, last year. Anees Ibrahim, younger brother of Pakistan-based Dawood, and his associate, Farooq Mansuri, were shown as wanted accused in the charge-sheet. Meanwhile, the court adjourned till January 27 hearing on Mr Joshi’s application for the cancellation of the warrant, as the petitioner was not present. In a related development, Mr Dhariwal’s counsel Rajendra Shirodkar moved an application for a copy of the charge sheet. But, the prosecution objected to this as his (Mr Dhariwal) name did not figure in it. Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian said the Judge had given permission for further investigation into the case following their application. She declined to divulge any details about the role of the manufacturers in the case. During investigations after the arrest of Ansari and Panchariya alleged involvement of Mr Joshi and Mr Dhariwal came to light.  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
