In Bombay HC, Sameer Wankhede claims draft complaint was altered to favour Aryan Khan, seeks CBI probe

In his petition before the court, Wankhede alleged that the noting of the legal advisor was destroyed and a final note giving a clean chit to some accused including Aryan was prepared by an officer outside the department. Wankhede also wanted the CBI, which registered an FIR against him last week in an extortion case related to the Cordelia episode, to investigate the matter.

In his petition, Wankhede said that after the investigation in the Cordelia case had concluded, a draft complaint had been prepared by the department’s legal advisor (DLA), Japan Babu, whereby charges were proposed against Aryan Khan and various sections were included in the draft complaint against him, the petition read.

It added, “However, the said draft complaint never came to be filed on record and in fact, it was replaced with a separate draft complaint prepared from outside, which fact was also confirmed by the DLA on a telephone call with the Petitioner (Wankhede) on 2nd June 2022 between 10:48 PM and 10:58 PM.”

“The said conversation between the Petitioner and the DLA is sufficient to indicate that the material collected during the investigation was not only confined to the case of any one accused but to all other accused against whom material collected during the investigation was sufficient to indicate commission of offences under the NDPS Act requiring each of the said accused to be subjected to prosecution through a complaint to be filed before the Special Court,” Wankhede added in his petition.

Further relying on the audio clip, Wakhede stated in his petition, “…the DLA had put a note on the investigation file suggesting the sections to be applied under the NDPS Act and the charges against each accused. With this conversation, it is abundantly clear that the material collected during the investigation was sufficient for launching prosecution against all such accused for whom proposal was made for the DLA to consider.”

“However, the further conversation which is most shocking is that the said proposal seeking prosecution of the accused though having been considered by the DLA and consent to such prosecution having been recorded on file, in the form of the noting under his signature, for certain mysterious reasons the said noting seems to have been destroyed only with the intention of facilitating reconsideration of the case of a particular accused with the intention of extending to him, the advantage and benefit, of being dropped from the list of the accused to be prosecuted,” the petition added.

“The conversation records the shock and surprise of the DLA to destruction of the said note as well as a complete changeover of the draft of the complaint to be filed before the Special Court for prosecution of the accused. The conversation further discloses that the draft of the complaint was prepared by a particular officer from outside the department,” the petition adds.

“The reason and motive behind having the draft of the complaint prepared from outside the department is sufficiently indicative of putting into effect the evil design of dropping the name of a particular accused from prosecution. Needless to say, that the draft of the complaint submitted by the Investigation Officer, NCB and approved by the DLA disclosing the grounds on which the prosecution of the said accused was justified was based on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,” the petition added.

“With the said material on record, by no stretch of imagination could it even be remotely suggested that it was a fit case for dropping prosecution of a particular accused. The conversation shows that the DLA was dragged into this controversy against his will and desire,” Wankhede says in his petition.

Further seeking a CBI probe in the matter, the petition said, “The aforesaid material would justify investigations by CBI to identify the person(s) who were instrumental behind the destruction of the note of the DLA, change of draft complaint to ensure that incrementing material in the said complaint and justification of prosecution by the DLA was totally wiped out from the said complaint only with the intention and objective of extending to a lone accused, the unfair advantage of being dropped from the list of accused.”

“..since the promulgation of the NDPS Act in 1985, in the history of NCB, it is for the first time that an accused person against whom there is evidence to justify prosecution was dropped from the list of accused The Petitioner says and submits that projection of innocence of an accused despite availability of evidence to justify prosecution is an independent distinct and separate offence punishable under Section 59 of the NDPS Act,” Wankhede added in the petition.

Wankhede further said the telephone conversation was saved on a phone and a hard drive that CBI officers had taken from him. And since they already have the evidence, Wankhede sought, “..it is enjoined upon the CBI to widen the scope of the investigation to identify the concerned officers of the department of the NCB Headquarters New Delhi, who have contributed to this entire unfair exercise of dropping the name of an accused to extend to him that benefit which in law, he did not deserve”.