The clean chit to Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan in the Cordelia cruise drugs case has raised questions over the controversial investigation carried out by the initial probe team led by then NCB zonal director Sameer Wankhede.
Speaking to News18, Deputy Director General (Operations) of the Narcotics Control Bureau Sanjay Singh, who led the Special Investigation Team, said there was no “U-turn” by the NCB in the case. Singh’s SIT had taken over the probe after Wankhede and his team were removed from the high-profile case.
In an exclusive interview, Sanjay Singh, however, did point out several irregularities in the initial investigation like informers being made witnesses, mobile phones not being seized in accordance with law, no medical examination to prove consumption and the use of WhatsApp chats as primary evidence.
Edited excerpts:
You have just completed probe in the Cordelia cruise drugs case. Some persons have been cleared, including Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan. What is the basis of this big U-turn when Bollywood is under the NCB scanner?
The Special Investigation Team formed to probe the Cordelia cruise drugs case has conducted the investigation in a fair and reasonable manner. On completion of investigation, all material and evidence that were gathered during investigation were evaluated and it was concluded that available material is inadequate to file complaint against six accused persons, including Aryan Khan. There is no U-turn; conclusion has been drawn on the basis of the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Some persons have been cleared on the basis of lack of evidence. Why could the first probe team not follow procedure as demanded by the law?
I don’t want to comment on the previous probe team’s work. We did not file complaint against some persons because certain procedures were not correct and few things were not done. The probe team couldn’t seize drugs from these individuals.
Medical examination was not conducted on the accused persons at the time of arrest to prove the charge of consumption. Extracting of data from mobile phones without formally seizing them puts a question mark on the validity of data. The admissibility of WhatsApp chats as primary evidence has been questioned by the Honourable Supreme Court. So taking all the facts and circumstances into account, the SIT concluded that the case is not fit to file complaint against six accused persons, including Aryan Khan.
Are there going to be any further investigations in the Aryan Khan case?
The investigation of the case is over. We have filed complaint against 14 accused persons on the basis of prosecutable evidence against them, leaving out six against whom we could not find prosecutable material.
Sameer Wankhede and his officials made a big issue of the WhatsApp chats of Aryan Khan. It is on the basis of these chats that Aryan Khan didn’t get bail for 29 days. Why are these chats not on record now?
As I said earlier, mobile phones were not seized in accordance with the law. Any data that has been extracted from a digital device in such manner would always be treated as doubtful. Be that as it may, WhatsApp chats have been analysed minutely and they are not connected with the present case. I may add here that various rulings of the Supreme Court have said that WhatsApp chats cannot be used as primary evidence.
What was the botch-up during the earlier probe headed by Sameer Wankhede? How and why did you think it happened?
The SIT has noticed many irregularities. Prominent ones are: making informers as witnesses, no videography of the seizure, extracting data from mobile phones in some cases even though there was no incriminating material available, no formal seizure of digital devices, no medical examination to prove consumption, use of WhatsApp chats as primary evidence.
Key witness Prabhakar Sail is no more. Do you think this case became weak also because of his death?
It is unfortunate. His statement was recorded before he died. In his statement, Shri Prabhakar said he did not witness recovery of any drugs or any seizure, and he was made to sign on blank papers.
The agency had sought two months’ extension in the probe. Did you discover anything important during this period?
These are procedural matters and I won’t be able to elaborate further on this. But it was important for us to satisfy ourselves before taking any view. One view can destroy an innocent individual and wrongly clearing someone can be dangerous for the society and bad for the agency. So we were cautious before moving further. We wanted to proceed very carefully.
Are you clearly saying this is complete clean chit to Aryan Khan?
We are saying that in our investigations, we didn’t find any evidence against (certain) individuals. As I said earlier, we didn’t find any evidence against these people to proceed further.
The first probe team is under the scanner. You have written against Sameer Wankhede and his team in the chargesheet. Do you see any action against them in the future?
We have conducted our investigation in a fair and reasonable manner. During investigation, we have noticed several irregularities and those have been on record. DG, NCB has ordered that vigilance team may take them into consideration when they submit their findings.
As an investigator, are you happy?
I am personally satisfied with the work of the SIT. Our conclusion not to file complaint against six accused persons is based on the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Courts are very particular about compliance with procedures as laid down in law, since the punishment provided under NDPS Act is stringent.
How deep-rooted is the connection between Bollywood and drugs?
How can I comment on this? There are cases against many individuals from all walks of life. Bollywood is also one industry and the difference between other individuals and them is that Bollywood is famous. But yes, many celebrities are under investigation by the NCB. I don’t know the outcome and don’t want to comment further.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment