Sunday , November 17 2024

High Court

Content Image 94349770 5f7e 4188 B838 5cf0e767a779

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has said that the FIR against actress Mamta Kulkarni in the drug seizure case will be quashed citing lack of evidence. The court is yet to give a detailed order but has said that Kulkarni's plea to quash the case will be accepted.

Kulkarni, through his lawyer, submitted that the high-profile drug seizure case before the court had damaged the reputation of the 90s actress and that she was involved in the scam.

While hearing Kulkarni's plea, the bench comprising Smt. Bharti Dangre and NY. Manjusha Deshpande observed that there is no evidence to prove the case except the allegations in the FIR.

On April 12, 2016, the Thane police raided two cars and recovered 2-3 kg of ephedrine (powder) from the tourists. It is a banned substance under the Narcotics Act.

The drivers of the vehicle, Mayur and Sagar, were arrested. The seizure was worth Rs. 80 lakh and both the accused were found carrying fake IDs of a pharma company.

During the investigation, 10 were arrested and seven others, including Kulkarni, were found absconding. According to the police, the actress attended a meeting with accused Vicky Goswami and others at a hotel in Konya in January 2016. The statement of another accused Jain confirmed Kulkarni's presence. Jain was also present at the meeting.

There was an alleged conspiracy to supply ephedrine powder laced with methamphetamine to Kenya from a Maharashtra-based company. The material was sold globally by Vicky Goswami and Dr. Abdullah. The prosecution claimed that all the accused had made illegal profits from the sale of the drug.

Kulkarni's plea, filed through advocate Madhav Thorat, argued that the allegations against him were based only on the statements of co-accused and there was no evidence.

Thorat argued that if there is an allegation of involvement in the conspiracy, there should also be bank transactions showing his involvement, which was also known to the government. Thorat further argued that some statements are not worthy of proof and some things have been said by others and they are not interferentable.