CBI questions Wankhede for 4 hrs in Cordelia drug bust case

MUMBAI: The CBI questioned IRS officer and former zonal chief of Narcotics Control Bureau, Sameer Wankhede, for around four hours at its regional headquarters in BKC on Saturday in the corruption and extortion case registered against him and four others in the Cordelia cruise drug bust case.
The CBI is investigating Wankhede and others on allegations of demanding Rs 25 crore bribe from actor Shah Rukh Khan to protect his son Aryan in the drug bust case.It is also learnt that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had also conducted a departmental inquiry against him on a series of other allegations, including not disclosing his assets. Sources said the report has indicated some serious lapses.
Wankhede has moved HC against the CBI action and has been granted protection from coercive action till Monday. Wankhede had denied the charges of demand of bribe and cited messages between him and Shah Rukh Khan which do not indicate any such demand. Wankhede also cited the Mumbai police investigation over the alleged extortion bid as "the enquiry was completed and closed as no prima facie offences as alleged were made out against the petitioner and others."
In his plea in HC, Wankhede questioned dropping of charges against Aryan despite the legal department suggesting including his name. He mentioned phone conversations between him and NCB's Department Legal Advisor (DLA) to support his claim. "A draft complaint was prepared by DLA Japan Babu whereby charges were proposed against Aryan Khan and various sections were included in the draft complaint against him. However, the draft complaint never came to be filed on record and in fact, was replaced with a separate draft complaint prepared from outside, which was also confirmed by DLA on a phone call with the petitioner (Wankhede) on 2nd June 2022."
Wankhede alleged the proposal seeking prosecution considered by the DLA and consent to such prosecution having been recorded on file have been destroyed for 'mysterious reasons.' The 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 accused to be prosecuted, Wankhede's plea said. The conversation records the shock and surprise of the DLA to destruction of the note as well as a complete changeover of draft of the complaint, he said.
"The draft of complaint was prepared by a particular officer from outside department. The motive behind having draft of complaint prepared from outside department is sufficiently indicative of putting into effect the evil design of dropping the name of a particular accused."