The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed the plea of gutka baron Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal seeking cancellation of a non-bailable warrant issued by a lower court against him.

The warrant was issued after Dhariwal, owner of Manikchand Gutka, failed to appear in a case of alleged nexus with the underworld.

The court adjourned to February 28 a similar plea of Goa [Images] Gutka's Jagdish Joshi.

Joshi had said he would appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation on February 25.

Joshi's lawyer Sirish Gupte told the court that his client would return from the United Arab Emirates on February 24 and appear before CBI the next day.

Both Dhariwal and Joshi had challenged an order of a special court, which had issued non-bailable warrants against them for their failure to appear before police.

Regarding Dhariwal's plea, the court said the investigating agency had the powers to call any person for questioning. If the person avoided interrogation then the court had the right to procure warrants against him, the high court said.

Dhariwal argued that a court did not have the powers to issue warrants to aid an investigation.

Also Read NRI gutka barons to return for questioning Dhariwal linked to Dawood, not me: J M Joshi Nagma denies underworld links Abu Salem: A dossier

However, the high court observed that the warrant issued by the lower court had asked Dhariwal to present himself before the court. This did not amount to aiding an investigation, the high court said.

Justice R M S Khandeparkar and Justice P V Kakade rejected Dhariwal's plea that he could not come to India from UAE in order to maintain his nonresident Indian status.

The prosecution sought custodial interrogation of gutka barons saying only sustained questioning would reveal the truth.

Shekhar Naphade, counsel for the state, said the investigating agency had been corresponding with the gutka barons for two months before procuring warrants.

Considering serious allegations leveled against them for offences under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, custodial interrogation was necessary, he said.

Dhariwal's counsel said his client would appear before the investigating agency in March, once he completes 180 days stay outside India to maintain his NRI status.

He said Dhariwal had also suggested that he was willing to answer the police queries by video conferencing. Dhariwal had suggested that two officers from the Mumbai police be sent to question him and he would bear the costs for their tickets.

The judges, however, rejected Dhariwal's argument.

Dhariwal and Joshi alleged that their letters to the police justifying their absence in India for questioning had been suppressed.

Naphade refuted the allegations saying that the material was put before the designated judge who issued the warrants.

He read out from their application for non-bailable warrants, which said both Dhariwal and Joshi had refused to appear soon.