Achi news desk-
The special court acquitted Daoud Ibrahim’s nephew and two others in an extortion case in 2019 | file
The Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA), in its detailed order acquitting Dawood Ibrahim’s nephew Rizwan Kaskar and three others in an extortion case in 2019, saw the possibility of implicating the men in a “false case”.
The three accused, Rizwan, Ahmedraja Vadhariya and Ashpak Towelwala were acquitted on Friday by special MCOCA judge BD Shelke. The court said that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the extortion charges in which Banai claimed that Ashfaq owed him 25 lakh rupees for trading in electronic products, but was threatened by the gangster Pahim Mahmetz not to ask for the money back and Ahmadaraja would. settle the amount according to his convenience. In the case of the prosecution, Ahmadraja, being a resident of Dubai, claimed close contacts with Rizwan, who in turn introduced him to other friends in the underworld.
Court comments on the investigation process
The extortion complaint was received on July 15, 2019. The court noted that Sanjay Yashwantrao Varankar, who was then the assistant commissioner of police, was then in charge of the anti-extortion cell. With the application, the complainant also submitted a pen drive with the conversation with the police officer.
The court noted that Varankar did not register the case but an inquiry was conducted. Based on the investigation, Ahmadraja was caught at the airport on July 15, 2019, after which the case was registered. The court also noted that the grades of the application and the complaint are not the same. The court noted that “the conclusion derived from these incidents on the part of the investigation office is that the possibility of evaluating the men as a subsequent act of such serious offenses cannot be ruled out.”
The court dismisses the MCOCA charges and finds no evidence of extortion
The court said the sanction given to trigger the MCOCA charges was also invalid. Apart from that, the charges were not proven to be the definition of “extortion by threats”. The court said, “The complainant never stated that the threats made against him were intended to compel him to hand over the property or pay extortion money… Evidence shows that the transaction between (Ashfak) Tuwalwala and the complainant was a business transaction to buy electronic and cosmetic items from China… and not under fear of death or fear of serious injury.”
