Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
Democracy that banks on the electorate
access_time 28 March 2024 5:34 AM GMT
Lessons to learn from Moscow terror attack
access_time 27 March 2024 6:10 AM GMT
Gaza
access_time 26 March 2024 4:34 AM GMT
The poison is not in words, but inside
access_time 25 March 2024 5:42 AM GMT
A witchhunt, plain and simple
access_time 23 March 2024 9:35 AM GMT
DEEP READ
Schools breeding hatred
access_time 14 Sep 2023 10:37 AM GMT
Ukraine
access_time 16 Aug 2023 5:46 AM GMT
Ramadan: Its essence and lessons
access_time 13 March 2024 9:24 AM GMT
When ‘Jai Sree Ram’ becomes a death call
access_time 15 Feb 2024 9:54 AM GMT
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightKeralachevron_rightQuick verification...

Quick verification against Mohanlal in elephant tusk case

text_fields
bookmark_border
Quick verification against Mohanlal in elephant tusk case
cancel

Thiruvananthapuram: The Vigilance court in Muvattupuzha Saturday ordered a quick verification in a case relating to seizure of elephant tusks from actor Mohanlal’s residence in Kochi.

Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court, acting on a complaint by an activist, A.A. Paulose, asked the department to complete the probe and submit its report by November 28.

Besides Mohanlal, the roles of then Forest Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan and three other persons will also be probed.

The case first surfaced in 2011 following an income tax raid at the actor's house here when it came to light that he possessed elephant tusks.

Forest Department officials registered a case against Mohanlal and two others in 2012, filing the first information report (FIR) before chief judicial magistrate at Perumbavoor, naming the actor as the first accused.

Mohanlal maintained that he had purchased the tusks and then Chief Minister Oommen Chandy of the United Democratic Front (UDF) government asked Forest Minister Radhakrishnan to look into the matter.

According to rules, possession of elephant tusks by anyone is against the Forest and Wildlife Act.

The petitioner said the forest officials had erred in their duty and did not act according to the law.

Show Full Article
Next Story