|Madhavan's Verdict on Match Fixing : The Complete Report|
WHICH HAS BEEN OMITTED BY CBI
entire report of the CBI deals with evidence pertaining to match fixing
and betting as well as the involvement of bookies, punters, players etc.
therein. There is however an extremely important aspect which should have
been considered and opinion given by the CBI which has not been done. I am
setting it out at the outset as I will often refer to the said aspect
later in this my report.
many Regular Cases and Preliminary Enquiries which are
investigated/enquired into by the CBI, very frequently misconduct
committed by public servants, which may not amount to any offence, but
violates accepted and expected norms of human conduct in general and
Conduct Rules in particular are proved. In such cases, CBI always
recommends departmental action for imposing punishment on the guilty
persons which punishment should not doubt be commensurate with the
misconduct which stood proved.
Following are a few illustrative instances of such violation of norms of
SHO often being in close contact with and meeting smugglers, brothel
keepers, other criminals etc. and later claiming, when caught, that he was
not mixed up with them but was just in frequent contact and that even the
meetings were innocuous.
Chief Secretary of a State often contacting and meeting shady
industrialists and businessmen without any official purpose and later
claiming, when caught, that the contacts and meetings were innocuous.
Government official frequently contacting and meeting Embassy staff of a
country which is known to be hostile to India and later claiming, when
caught, that the contacts and meetings were innocent.
man frequently contacting and meeting women of ill repute and later
claiming, when caught, that such contacts and meetings were platonic.
would be seen that in each of the illustrative instances cited above,
which by no means are exhaustive, the person concerned is clearly guilty
of misconduct which may not amount to a crime. Such acts by such persons
would be misconduct even if there is no Code of Conduct in place. The
reason for this is that such activities are undesirable and therefore
prohibited by necessary implication, even by normal rules of acceptable
this case, the CBI report clearly establishes that some of the indicted
players were in frequent contacts with bookies/punters. The question that
arises is whether such senior players were morally correct in even
maintaining such close relationship with such bookies/punters. I am of the
view that irrespective of the allegation of match fixing/betting and
non-existence of the Code of Conduct of BCCI prior to 1st October, 2000,
the concerned players are definitely guilty of undesirable activities and
misconduct as they were players of eminence and were selected by the BCCI
for representing the country at international level. Such players are role
models for people in general and budding cricketers in particular and
ought not have maintained such close relationship with bookies/punters. I
am of the view that on this ground also the concerned players are guilty
of misconduct, wherever such contacts and/or meetings are proved by
preponderance of probabilities.
ASPECTS IN THE REPORT OF THE CBI
At Pages 1-13 of the report, CBI has set out the parameters, mechanics
used, interpretation of the terminology of match fixing, history of
betting syndicates in India, betting procedure, names and addresses of
major bookies and punters, dimensions of betting and manipulations. To
ensure brevity, it is not necessary to reiterate in my report the contents
of the CBI report in respect of the aforesaid aspects. It is suggested
that the CBI report itself may please be perused in this regard. I would
however state that the approach and observations of the CBI on these
aspects are generally correct.
OF BOOKIES AND PUNTERS
At Pages 14 to 54 of the report, CBI has set out in detail the statements
of bookies and punters recorded by the CBI. The names of such persons
whose statements have been recorded by the CBI and reproduced in the
report are as under:-
Relevant statements of most of the above persons, which as recorded by the
CBI are available in Vol.-II of my report.
In my capacity as Commissioner, BCCI, I have the power to summon and
examine only those persons who are under the control of BCCI, namely past
and present cricket players, officials of BCCI and employees of BCCI.
Consequently, it is not possible for me to summon any of the persons
mentioned above over whom BCCI has no control whatsoever. However,
considering the reputation, expertise and objectivity of the CBI in its
functioning, I have no reason to doubt that the statements of the said
persons have been correctly recorded by the CBI. It is not necessary to
set out at this stage their statements as the relevant parts of their
statements figure later in the report of the CBI itself while setting out
the statements of the players and others and also while analysing the
evidence against each of the players and employees. To avoid repetition, I
shall also refer to the statements of the aforesaid bookies/punters only
while narrating the statements of players, officials and employees
recorded by me and while setting out my analysis of the findings of the
CBI, explanations of the indicted players and others and my reasoning and
Similarly, I have no jurisdiction also to enquire into or comment upon
foreign players who have been indicted by the CBI in its report.
OF MY REPORT
CBI registers, on an average, 1200 cases (RCs & PEs) every year. Some
of these cases are prosecuted by the CBI without obtaining of saniction of
any competent authority. In some other cases, CBI sends what are called
"SP's Report" to the department concerned for obtaining
statutory sanction before prosecution. Even in cases where CBI to them
does not propose to lodge prosecution but recommends only departmental
action by the Ministry or Public Sector Undertaking concerned, "SP's
Report" is sent by the CBI making such recommendation. Some cases are
closed by the CBI on conclusion of investigation/enquiry without any
action. In such cases the allegations turn out to be false or sufficient
evidence is not forthcoming for CBI to recommend any action.
The present report submitted by the CBI relating to match fixing etc. is
in the nature of "SP's Report" sent by the CBI recommending
departmental action, namely action by BCCI. This is for the reason that at
Pages 138-148 of the report, CBI has analysed the legal position that
emerges on the basis of legal advice obtained by the CBI from its own
Legal Advisor, Hon'ble Shri Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, former Judge,
Supreme Court of India and Shri Harish Salve, Solicitor General of India.
The conclusion arrived at by the CBI on the basis of such legal advice is
that no criminally prosecutable case has been made out in respect of the
allegations in this case.
However CBI has expressed the view (at Page 148) that offences under
Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 can
be registered against Mohd. Azharuddin and Ajay Sharma, who are public
servants, as they are employees of SBI and Central Warehousing Corporation
respectively. I have my own doubts about the applicability of the said two
sub-sections to the said two players, as the misdemeanour was not
committed by them qua their status as public servants. This is, however, a
matter to be decided by the CBI after evaluation. Neither I nor BCCI has
any role to play in this regard.
I have already mentioned above that the present report is analogous to an
"SP's Report" sent by the CBI to a Ministry or PSU recommending
departmental action against certain persons who are under the control of
such Ministry or PSU. In such cases, the Ministry or the PSU concerned
does not punish the indicted public servants solely on the basis of the
findings of the CBI in the SP's Report. On the other hand an enquiry is
conducted by the Ministry or PSU concerned in which, most importantly, the
indicted person is given opportunity to put forth his defence. This is
necessary as such persons, when they were examined by the CBI earlier,
would not be aware of what the findings of the CBI would be regarding
their culpability. Consequently, when CBI subsequently indicts them, they
get an opportunity to defend themselves on the legal principle audi
alteram partem, which means "hear the other side also".
such cases, the Ministry or PSU concerned never goes beyond the CBI report
and commence any enquiry against any person who is not indicted in this
report of the CBI. This has been the practice in the past five decades in
respect of thousands of such SP's Reports sent by the CBI to various
Ministries and PSUs. Therefore, in the present matter also it is necessary
for me only to conduct inquiry in respect of the following persons by
giving them an opportunity to give their explanations regarding their
statements recorded by the CBI, the analysis made in the CBI report of the
allegations against each of them and to make further submissions/evidence
which they may like to put forward. In respect of each such person, the
date on which I examined such person, and the place of examination are
also set out:-
Apart from the above, on 12th November, 2000 I also met Dr. A.C. Muthiah,
President, BCCI at Chennai and asked him to furnish explanations/replies
to the various observations made in respect of BCCI in the report of the
CBI. This request was made to Dr. A.C. Muthiah, because he is presently
holding the post of President, BCCI and is therefore the most competent
authority to furnish such explanations/replies on behalf of BCCI.
Later in this report, I shall analyse the roles played by the aforesaid
persons as set out in the CBI report, in juxtaposition with their
statements recorded by me and then furnish my final opinion along with
grounds for the final opinion.
EVIDENCE OF NON-MATCH
30. The CBI report is replete with incidents and
instances of the aforesaid indicted players (except Shri Nayan Mongia)
being in frequent contact with bookies/punters, getting moneys and other
favours from bookies/punters. However an extremely important aspect of the
CBI report is that on certain occasions, despite alleged gratifications
passed on to some of the aforesaid players, the promised results did not
come about. As per the report of the CBI, the following are a few such
instances of matches not being fixed.
|| Homepage | On Line Polls | Polling Results | Post Your | Messages From | Rankings | Statistics | Teams | Autographs ||
|| Cric-Calendar | New Interviews | Picture Gallery | World Records | History | Comparative Charts | Refine Your Cricket ||
|| Cricketology | Dream Team | Time to Laugh | Did U Know | Legends | Quotations | Savi's Diary | Fan-doo Letters ||
|| Match fixing Saga | Articles Archive | Cric-couples | Inspiration from Hollywood | Dupliket | Chat ||
|| World Cup Archive | Chilli 'N' Pepper | Columns | Controversies ||
Contest | Tournament
Info | News | Membership