yehhaicricket.com
  Madhavan's Verdict on Match Fixing : The Complete Report  
 

 

MANOJ PRABHAKAR

76. Manoj Prabhakar is supposed to be the genesis and originator of the allegations relating to match fixing and the linkage of players with bookies and betting syndicate. I have used the words "supposed to be" deliberately. The reason for this is that Manoj Prabhakar did make an allegation in 1997 of his having been offered Rs. 25 lakhs by Kapil Dev, whose name he disclosed much later to under perform in a match with Pakistan in the Singer Cup series in Sri Lanka in 1994. However, this allegation was enquired into by the Chandrachud Committee and it became a closed chapter after the Committee submitted its report with the conclusion that the allegation was not proved. The present allegations of match fixing etc. arose, not out of Manoj Prabhakar's original allegation, but due to the Delhi Police tape recording the telephonic conversation of Hansie Cronje during their enquiries in some other matter relating to extortion etc. It was this disclosure by Delhi Police on 7th April 2000 in a press conference held by Dr. K.K. Paul, Joint Commissioner (Crime) that commenced the scandal of the present allegations of match fixing etc. and the inevitable enquiries that commenced thereafter.

77. In investigations conducted by the police, success comes mainly due to three factors, namely perspiration, inspiration and luck. In a normal investigation, perspiration, which means hard work, would constitute 70% of the reasons for success. On a rough estimate, 15% of the success would arise on account of inspiration, namely brilliant detection and reasoning in the style of Sherlock Holmes. The remaining 15% of the reasons would be solely due to the luck of the police officer conducting the enquiry. Having spent three decades as an officer in the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is the premier investigating agency in the country and ranks among the best such agencies in the world, I know this only too well by practical experience. Be that as it may, I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Delhi Police headed by Shri Ajay Sharma, Commissioner of Police and the team headed by Dr. K.K. Paul, Joint Commissioner upon the magnificent job they did in la affaire Hansie Cronje. But for Delhi Police dropping the bombshell on 7th April 2000, the cancer of match fixing would have continued merrily with no outsider knowing about it and the secret would have been known only to the persons who benefitted thereby and others, with honest players just suspecting such possibility existing. We can now be sure that for at least five years from now, cricket players all over the world would behave themselves and not think of even wishing a person who is known to be bookie or a punter. I mention the period as five years because human memory is short and crimes tend to recur after a lapse of time. I as well as the cricket loving public would no doubt be very happy if I am proved wrong about the period of such good conduct.

78. CBI has analysed the evidence against Manoj Prabhakar at Pages 103-108 in the report.

79. I recorded the statement of Manoj Prabhakar on 11th November, 2000 at Radisson Hotel, Chennai, to which place I had summoned him. The 12 page statement of Manoj Prabhakar, which was recorded by me is at Pages 018-047 of Vol-III. During the examination, Manoj Prabhakar also handed over the to me two video tapes and transcripts relating to his examination by the CBI which I took over vide receipt memo dated 11th November, 2000. I have viewed the tapes and also read the transcripts and I may state that they have no great relevance to the opinion I would be recording later. I have also viewed another tape entitled "Fallen Heroes" and did not find therein any admissible or credible evidence except some drawing room gossip. In any event, none of them stand properly proved. They have been edited also.

80. Regarding the incident in 1994 at Colombo during the Singer Cup series, Manoj Prabhakar stated before me that what he told the CBI is in some respects different from what was recorded by the CBI. He then proceeded to set out as under about what actually took place according to him. "Myself and Navjot Singh Sidhu were sharing a room. The next room was shared by Prashant Vaidya and Nayan Mongia. The day prior to the match with Pakistan, Kapil Dev entered the room occupied by Prashant Vaidya and Nayan Mongia when a Bengali journalist, whose name I have subsequently leant to be Sakya Sen Mitra, was in the room. I do not recall now if Nayan Mongia was in that room at that time. After talking to the persons in that room, Kapil Dev entered our room through a connecting door. At that time, I happened to be shaving in the bathroom, the door of which was open. Navjot Singh Sidhu came to the bathroom door and told me "Phaji has brought an offer of Rs. 25 lakhs". Here I have to clarify that all players in the Indian Team used to call Kapil Dev as "Phaji". I told Navjot Singh Sidhu "Ask him to come and speak to me". Then Kapil Dev came and asked me "Han bhai, ki karna hai". This was in Punjabi and a translation of this is "Han bhai, what is to be done now". I then became very angry and shouted at Kapil Dev "Why don't you go to the Pakistani team and make the same offer and see what happens; Are you selling our country to the enemy?". I then used abusive language and told him "Tum apne mulk ko gadhaaron ke haath bech rahe ho; koyi bhi keemath mujhe kharidh nahin sakthi". Translated into English, this means "You are selling our country to the enemies and I cannot be bought by any amount of money". On hearing this, Kapil Dev quickly left the place."

81. In respect of this allegation, Manoj Prabhakar made the first public disclosure three years later namely in 1997 in the Outlook magazine. Even then he did not disclose the name of the player who had offered him Rs. 25 lakhs. He did not disclose this even before the Chandrachud Committee. Earlier in my opinion I have already narrated the conclusion arrived at by the Chandrachud Committee in respect of this allegation.

82. Presently, CBI has also enquired into this matter and come to the conclusion, "there is thus no credible evidence to substantiate the allegation of Manoj Prabhakar that Kapil Dev had offered him Rs. 25 lacs to under perform during the Singer Cup series, 1994 in Sri Lanka".

83. Though Kapil Dev has not been indicted by the CBI and has been given a reasonably honourable exoneration by the CBI, I have carefully reviewed the entire evidence in this regard with a view to decide if I should commence a third de novo enquiry into the matter. Despite my approaching the subject objectively without getting influenced by the conclusions arrived at by the Chandrachud Committee and the CBI, I found that there is no purpose in commencing such an enquiry. Accordingly, I have not examined Kapil Dev or any other person in this regard. Suffice to say that all the so called witnesses cited by Manoj Prabhakar, except Ravi Shastri, have denied any knowledge of such an incident.

84. While on the subject of Kapil Dev it is also relevant to mention his telephone/cell phone analysis has not disclosed any contact with bookies/punters. This is in sharp contrast to such analysis made in respect of the indicted players, except Nayan Mongia, by the CBI. CBI have therefore, concluded that there is no credible evidence to prove Kapil Dev's linkage with the betting syndicate during his playing career or after his retirement. After carefully considering the entire evidence in this regard as set out in the CBI report, I am inclined to agree with the conclusion of the CBI.

85. In the statement recorded by CBI, Manoj Prabhakar stated that in the 1996 test series held in New Zealand, he was sent back due to injury. One day, he was in the BCCI office at Mumbai. There, one Prakash Kelkar, who sits in the BCCI office, introduced Prabhakar to an unknown person who requested Prabhakar to introduce him to some of the Indian players then playing in New Zealand. When Prabhakar asked him the purpose, the said person told him that he had lost a lost of money and he had to make up for it by fixing certain matches through prominent Indian players. Prabhakar did not believe the said man. Therefore, the said man told Prabhakar that he was going to ring up Ajit Wadekar and Azharuddin and that Prabhakar could listen to the conversation on the parallel line. Thereafter, he rang up both Ajit Wadekar and Azharuddin and to the shock of Prabhakar, he heard that both of them had a positive attitude towards fixing matches. However, Prabhakar told that person that he will have nothing to do with him and thereafter it appeared to Prabhakar that the said person had informed the Management that Prabhakar knew about all these activities. Thereafter, Prabhakar was harassed by the Management continuously. In the next tournament, Prabhakar was made to bat at No.6 and Ajay Jadeja was made to open the batting. Prabhakar told the CBI that he remembered that in one match Ajay Jadeja scored around 12 runs in 105/115 balls. When Prabhakar complained to Ajit Wadekar, the latter told him that he was talking rubbish.

86. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar generally confirmed the above. However, he said that this was in 1994 and not in 1996. After the operation in the injured left leg, Prabhakar was staying in a hotel at Mumbai for post-operative care. Prabhakar does not remember the name of the hotel. At that time Prakash Kelkar of the BCCI office, Mumbai brought to the room of Prabhakar, a person known as Mashaal. Prabhakar stated that the said person is described as "unknown" in the CBI statement, which is not correct. In reply to my query, Prabhakar stated that by the word, Management, he meant Ajit Wadekar and Azharuddin who were Manager and Captain at that time.

87. In the statement recorded by CBI, Prabhakar also mentioned about the late Raman Lamba betting Rs. 50,000 on behalf of Prabhakar without the knowledge of Prabhakar. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated that because the bookie and Raman Lamba knew that Prabhakar could not be approached directly, an inducement was being offered to Prabhakar to lose the match, which according to Prabhakar, they thought Prabhakar would do, if Rs. 50,000 was paid as bet in the name of Prabhakar.

88. In respect of the same incident, Prabhakar had also received a call, as he stated before the CBI from "some unknown person" who claimed himself to be a Pakistan bookie and he threatened Prabhakar and told him that he (the bookie) had lost around Rs. 85 lakhs. Prabhakar stated before me that he did not tell CBI that the person who telephoned, him was a Pakistani bookie. Prabhakar mentioned in his statement before me, "I knew it was M.K. whom I then knew as John. I did not tell CBI that the person who telephoned me was John which was the name by which I had known MK. I did not know that John was actually MK. I did not convey this to CBI as they did not ask for the identity of the bookie". I feel that this is hard to swallow.

89. In the statement recorded by CBI, Prabhakar stated regarding the Kanpur one-day match against West Indies that Nayan Mongia, who came into bat with Prabhakar, told Prabhakar that there were instructions that they should bat slow. However, to this day, Nayan Mongia has not told Prabhakar who gave him the said instructions but Prabhakar followed the instructions thinking that it was part of game strategy. Prabhakar thought that the possible strategy was that India should bat slow as India was already in the finals and West Indies, which was a weaker team, could also reach the finals on higher run-rate. When CBI asked him why Prabhakar did not disclose all these facts before the Chandrachud Committee, Prabhakar stated that he wanted to disclose every thing but Justice Chandrachud told Prabhakar that he would not record anything which Prabhakar was saying. Prabhakar told CBI that he did not see any point in disclosing the facts as his statement was not being recorded. I do not believe Prabhakar at all in this regard. It is inconceivable that a retired Chief Justice of India would state as Prabhakar now claims.

90. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated that this incident took place towards the end of 1994. In the said match, Prabhakar was the opening batsman and remained at the crease till the last ball. When Nayan Mongia went in to join Prabhakar, he conveyed to Prabhakar the instructions of the Management not to lose the wicket and to get close to the target. Prabhakar stated before me that he played only his usual game. Prabhakar said that there were approximately 43/46 balls remaining out of which Prabhakar faced about 11 balls and scored 9 runs. The remaining 32/35 balls were faced by Mongia who scored only 5 runs. Prabhakar stated before me that thereafter the narration in statement recorded by CBI, that Prabhakar thought of a possible strategy being involved is not correct. Prabhakar stated that he did only his usual batting. Later, while dealing with Nayan Mongia, I shall again deal with the incident. Suffice to say that Manoj Prabhakar cannot also be faulted for this incident as as Nayan Mongia does confirm that he had conveyed as such to Manoj Prabhakar.

91. In the further statement of Manoj Prabhakar recorded by the CBI on 4th July, 2000 regarding his mobile phone printout which disclosed a number of calls to known bookies/punters including Sanjeev Chawla, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara, Rattan Mehta etc, Manoj Prabhakar stated that he had contacted them for the purpose of investigating match fixing allegations. He further stated that he knew Sanjeev Chawla since the latter visited the gym at Hotel Park Royal and Prabhakar was looking for an overseas partner for his cosmetics business and the telephone calls to Sanjeev Chawla through the cell phone were in that connection only. Prabhakar told CBI that Rajesh Kalra is his friend and prints brochures for the cosmetics business of Prabhakar. He further stated that he also knew Sunil Dara, as he used to visit frequently the gym at Hotel Park Royal. Once or twice, he had asked Prabhakar about the outcome of cricket matches and he had given his opinion to Sunil Dara. Prabhakar also told the CBI that he knew Anand Saxena very well and had attended a few parties with him. Anand Saxena, on some occasions, had asked Prabhakar to introduce cricket players to him but Prabhakar had refused do so.

92. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated that he did not tell the CBI that his telephone calls to Sanjeev Chawla, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara, Rattan Mehta etc. were for the purpose of investigating match fixing allegations. The fact is that he did so only with Rattan Mehta, who disconnected the call, when he knew that Prabhakar was speaking to him. This happened only once. Sanjeev Chawla had known Prabhakar because of their visits to gym at Hotel Park Royal, New Delhi, where Prabhakar joined only in 1999. Sanjeev Chawla had telephoned Prabhakar only on a couple of occasions from London. The calls were not in connection with cricket but in connection with the cosmetics business as Prabhakar had given him a few samples and sought his help to export cosmetics. Sanjeev Chawla telephoned him because in the samples, Prabhakar had given the MRP in Rupees whereas Sanjeev Chawla wanted to know as to how much the cost would be in US $. Prabhakar added that he did not attend parties with Anand Saxena. He only attended a birthday party given by Anand Saxena on the occasion of the birthday of his child. I am of the view that this version given by Prabhakar before me contains a lot of half truths.

93. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Prabhakar had stated that he was introduced to Mukesh Kumar Gupta by Ajay Sharma sometime in 1990 and Prabhakar knew him as John and not as Mukesh Kumar Gupta or MK. Prabhakar had met MK 5-6 times only, but used to speak to MK. on the telephone. Prabhakar had seen MK. abroad also. MK. had given about Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 for each piece of information about cricket matches only when the information was of use to MK.

94. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar had stated the he did not say as above regarding MK. Prabhakar also added that he had not received any such amounts from MK. In the statement recorded by CBI, Prabhakar had stated that on being asked whether MK had given him money to buy Maruti Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour in 1990, Prabhakar had stated that he had purchased the Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour but had paid for it himself. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated "I never had a Gypsy. After returning from England tour, I had bought only a Maruti standard car which was financed by Escorts, where I was then working. Escorts had issued a cheque in favour of the dealer for the price of the car. Against the said loan, Escorts used to deduct about Rs. 1,800 per month out of my salary. When I sold the car in 1993-94, I issued a cheque in favour of Escorts for the balance amount of the loan. I shall try to trace the available papers in this regard and make them available to you at Delhi within three or four days". I may mention that Prabhakar has not handed over to me till now the papers pertaining to the Maruti standard car.

95. Regarding the other allegations against Manoj Prabhakar, I shall set out my conclusion at the end of this analysis. In respect of the Gypsy allegation however, CBI has not got any particulars about the Gypsy car, which it could have done easily. In such matters, when the investigating agency fails to conduct enquiry, which it can do easily, the benefit of the absence of evidence always accrues in favour of the suspected person. It is no doubt true that Prabhakar has also not handed over to me the papers of the Maruti car which he claims to have purchased. Prabhakar has asserted that he never had a Gypsy. Yet, in the absence of any evidence in this regard being available in the CBI report, I hold that this particular allegation relating to Maruti Gypsy is not proved against Prabhakar.

96. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Prabhakar has stated that he did not introduce Dean Jones to MK. after a festival match in Sri Lanka in the early-nineties. Prabhakar was in the same flight as MK. but it was purely 'accidental'. Prabhakar also denied before CBI that MK had ever visited his house at Ghaziabad. Prabhakar accepted having made a phone call to Gus Logie at MK's request but Logie refused to do anything for MK. Prabhakar accepted before CBI that he had introduced Mark Waugh to MK in Hong Kong during a six-a-side tournament. Prabhakar also admitted before CBI that he had introduced Brian Lara, Salim Malik and Alec Stewart to MK. Before CBI, Prabhakar denied having introduced Arvind d' Silva and Ranatunga to MK. Prabhakar further stated before CBI, "for these introductions I received money only once or twice. M.K. used to pay only when introduction to foreign players resulted in a profitable relationship. MK used to pay money through one of his servants."

97. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar has stated that most of what is appearing in the CBI statement as above is incorrect. He stated that he had tried to make a call to Gus Logie at MK's request to find out the weather but the call did not go through. I do not believe the statement of Prabhakar.

98. Prabhakar also stated before me that during the Hong Kong tournament, he introduced some persons to some others but does not recall whom he introduced to whom. Prabhakar stated that therefore, it is incorrect that he introduced March Waugh, Brian Lara, Salim Malik, Alec Stewart to MK and that he had never stated so to the CBI. He added before me that, "I have never received any money at any time from MK for any purpose. However, on a couple of occasions, MK had sent Diwali gifts through his servants. This happened during 1991-92".

99. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Prabhakar accepted having told MK that Delhi would lose the Ranji Trophy quarter final match of 1991 between Delhi and Bombay, since some of the Delhi players were scheduled to play league cricket in England, which was clashing with further Ranji Trophy engagements. Before CBI, Prabhakar denied having received any money from MK for the said information. Prabhakar confirmed this in the statement recorded by me.

100. In the last paragraph of the further statement by the CBI, Prabhakar stated that he was "very friendly" with Tipu Kohli, a punter, and he used to call Prabhakar to get his opinion and information about cricket matches. Prabhakar also accepted that he knew Mashaal, a bookie of Bombay.

101. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated that he had known Tipu Kohli only during the past two years as he visits the gym at Hotel Park Royal. He does talk to Prabhakar about cricket matches. Prabhakar said that so far as Mashall is concerned, CBI has mentioned his name at the end of the statement of Prabhakar, whereas he had given his name to CBI with reference to Mashaal meeting him with Prakash Kelkar during his hotel stay at Bombay. Prabhakar stated before me, "It is not correct that I know Mashaal". Mashaal had met Prabahakar only once in Bombay in 1994. In the CBI report the evidence in respect of Manoj Prabhakar has been analysed at pages 103-105.

102. CBI has stated that MK was introduced to Manoj Prabhakar in 1990 by Ajay Sharma, a fact endorsed by both Ajay Sharma and Manoj Prabhakar before CBI. No doubt in the statement of Ajay Sharma recorded by me, he has denied having done so. Manoj Prabhakar however stated before me that he had known MK only as John and not as Mukesh Kumar Gupta @ MK.

103. CBI has relied on the statement of MK who had stated before CBI that he had paid Rs. 40,000 to Prabhakar before India's tour to England. MK also told CBI that he had promised to pay Prabhakar the money equivalent to the cost of a Maruti Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour if Prabhakar provides information about weather, pitch, team composition etc during the tour. MK also stated that Prabhakar underperformed at his behest in one of the tests in England, which ended in a draw. CBI has not however collected the evidence in this regard. In fact, CBI has not furnished the statistics of any test match, Ranji Trophy match or one-dayer, which CBI ought to have done.

104. MK further stated before CBI that he kept up his promise and financed Prabhakar's Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour. Prabhakar admitted before CBI of his having purchased a Gypsy after the England tour, but denied that it was financed by M.K. CBI has concluded that "However, MK's statement in this respect appears to be more credible in view of the specific reference to Gypsy with 'wide tyres' and also the fact that Prabhakar purchased this Gypsy after the England tour.

105. In so far as the allegation relating to the Gypsy vehicle is concerned, I have already opined earlier that the said allegation is not supported by evidence which could have been collected by CBI and therefore the said allegation stands not proved. 106. In respect of the allegation of Rs. 40,000 allegedly paid by MK to Manoj Prabhakar before India's tour to England in 1990, Prabhakar had denied the same. He also added "CBI did not even ask me if this part of the statement of MK was correct or not". In taking this technical plea, Prabhakar does have a point. CBI ought to have questioned Prabhakar regarding this allegation but failed to do so. Due to this, I hold that this allegation stands not proved.

107. Regarding the England visit wherefrom he reportedly gave information to M.K. and also under-performed at the behest of M.K., Prabhakar stated "the test has not been identified. This allegation by MK is false. I did not under-perform in any match in England. CBI never have questioned me in this aspect."

108. It is a fact that CBI did not question Prabhakar regarding the aforesaid allegation made by MK, which they ought to have done. Consequently, I hold this allegation also as not proved.

109. CBI has mentioned that MK had stated before CBI that Prabhakar had 'sold' MK information about the Ranji Trophy quarter final match in 1991 between Delhi and Bombay. CBI has also stated that Prabhakar, in his statement had accepted that he had provided information that Delhi would lose the match but denied before CBI of having received any money from MK. CBI has concluded, "it is, however, difficult to believe that Prabhakar provided this 'information' without accepting any returns". In the statement recorded by me also Prabhakar admitted that he had casually told M.K. that no Delhi players appeared to be interested in winning the match. Prabhakar stated that he had not 'sold' the said information to MK and that he had not received payments therefor. When Prabhakar knew that MK nay, John as now pleaded by Prabhakar, was a bookie, he had no business to convey such inside information to M.K. This was therefore misconduct by him irrespective of the fact whether he had sold the information or given it for free. I, therefore, hold him guilty of misconduct in this regard.

110. M.K. further stated before CBI that during the one-day series in Australia, just prior to the World Cup 1992, Prabhakar had provided specific information about two one-dayers against Australia in which M.K. made good money on the basis of Prabhakar's information. Prabhakar has denied having done so. More importantly, he stated before me "CBI did not even question me regarding this allegation".

111. It is unfortunate that CBI has not questioned MK regarding this allegation. I, therefore, hold that this allegation against Prabhakar is not proved.

112. MK further stated before CBI about the England tour of India in 1993. MK claimed that in two one-day matches in that series in Gwalior, Prabhakar had given information which turned out incorrect. However, in a one-dayer in Bangalore, his information proved correct. Unfortunately, CBI has not identified any of the three matches referred to in this part of the analysis. Prabhakar stated before me, "I never talked to MK as set out in this regard".

113. Towards the conclusion of the analysis of match fixing in respect of Prabhakar, CBI has stated as under:- "As regards the word 'information' used by MK, it is difficult to believe that in an age when television has brought cricket to our drawing rooms and expert commentators thoroughly analyse various aspects of a match like pitch, team strength, probable result, etc., such information provided by a player is of any use to a Bookie. So, in this respect, it has to be construed that the word 'information' is a euphemism for underperforming or'fixing'."

114. Regarding this Prabhakar stated that this is wrong interpretation given by the CBI.

115. While it was thoroughly undesirable that Prabhakar maintained a close contact with MK, in a matter involving legal or quasi-legal analysis of a person's involvement in what could possibly be a crime or what could possibly be match fixing, I am afraid that neither an investigating agency like CBI, nor I as Commissioner, BCCI can interpret the evidence in the manner in which CBI has done. It is no doubt open to a layman and even for a journalist to state so in an article. Such quantum leap from one word to a more serious allegation, which would involve the suspect in such allegation, is not permitted. The general principle involved in such matters is that while hundreds of guilty persons may be allowed to escape, even one innocent person should not be found guilty or punished. On this principle, I am not in agreement with the interpretation given by CBI and the reasoning followed by CBI to arrive at such interpretation.

116. Having stated as above, I would now reiterate that is thoroughly undesirable for cricket players, particularly at national level, to maintain such close relationship with bookies/punters. They are role models to youngsters in general and budding cricketers in particular and should therefore be, to quote Shakespeare, beyond suspicion also. In this test Prabhakar fails and has therefore to be held guilty of misconduct.

117. CBI's analysis of the evidence proceeds to state further as under: "Mukesh Kumar Gupta has referred to a number of instances when Prabhakar had introduced him to foreign players on payment of money. Prabhakar has stated that he used to receive money only when such introduction proved profitable to Mukesh Kumar Gupta. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has stated that the following players were introduced to him by Prabhakar.
(1) Arvinda D'silva : Mukesh Kumar Gupta has stated that Prabhakar had introduced Arvinda D'silva to him but Prabhakar in his statement has denied it.
(2) Salim Malik : Prabhakar introduced Malik during a match between Wills Cup winners of Pakistan and Wills Cup winners of India. This match took place in 1991 at Delhi. Prabhakar has accepted that he introduced Salim Malik to Mukesh Kumar Gupta.
(3) Dean Jones : Dean Jones was introduced by Prabhakar during a festival match at Sri Lanka and Prabhakar was paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta has further stated that he and Prabhakar had come back to India in the same flight from Colombo after that tournament. Prabhakar has denied that he introduced Dean Jones, but accepted that he and Mukesh Kumar Gupta had come back to India by the same flight on one occasion from Sri Lanka.
(4) Brian Lara : Prabhakar introduced him to MK and Prabhakar has accepted it.
(5) Arjuna Ranatunga : Mukesh Kumar Gupta has stated that he was introduced by Prabhakar. Latter has denied it.
(6) Alec Stewart : Prabhakar introduced him. Accepted by Prabhakar
(7) Mark Waugh : MK was introduced to March Waugh by Prabhakar during a six-a-side tournament in Hong Kong. Prabhakar has accepted this in his statement.
(8) Gus Logie : Prabhakar had rung up Gus Logie from his (Prabhakar's) residence at Ghaziabad for an introduction to Mukesh Kumar Gupta but Logie refused to talk to him. Prabhakar has accepted this in his statement."

118. Regarding this, earlier in this opinion I have set out what Prabhakar stated before me. He has vaguely stated of making some introductions of some persons to others. He denied however, that he did so in respect of MK. He has also said that he had received only Diwali gifts from M.K. Prabhakar also admitted before me that he did make a call to Gus Logie at MK's request to find out the weather, but the call did not through.

119. From the evidence and circumstances, it is clear that Prabhakar was too much mixed up with M.K. and did make some introductions of players to him. In this regard I am inclined to accept as correct the analysis as above by CBI. For the same reasons as set out earlier, I therefore, hold Manoj Prabhakar guilty of misconduct.

120. The CBI report proceeds to state that Tipu Kohli has stated before CBI that he used to get information from Prabhakar about cricket matches especially during the England tour of India in 1993 and also paid him a sum of Rs. 1 lakhs on one occasion.

121. Regarding this Prabhakar stated before me he had known Tipu Kohli only during the past two years and therefore there is not question of Prabhakar giving him useful information in 1993.

122. Unfortunately, in the statement of Manoj Prabhakar recorded by CBI they have not asked him about the allegation of Tipu Kohli having paid Rs. 1 lakhs to Prabhakar. Consequently, I give the benefit of doubt to Prabhakar in this regard and hold him not guilty.

123. CBI has documentary evidence of Manoj Prabhakar having made a number of calls to bookies/punters like Sanjeev Chawla, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara and Rattan Mehta. I have already set out earlier Prabhakar's interpretation of the said calls. However, it should be noticed that the CBI report states that these calls were 'recent'. Prabhakar claims that these were in connection with his investigation and other matters. As these calls were recently made, whatever be the purpose of the calls and motivation, they were not made during the relevant time. Therefore, the said telephonic conversations cannot be the basis to hold Prabhakar guilty in the matter of match fixing. But his close contacts with bookies/punters are proved.

124. CBI has concluded "the evidence against Prabhakar discloses his nexus with a wide array of bookies/punters, which has contributed significantly to corrupting cricket in India and abroad".

125. Prabhakar in the statement recorded by me, has categorised the aforesaid conclusion as incorrect and unwarranted.

126. In the aforesaid opinion, I have already given my findings regarding the guilt or otherwise of Prabhakar in respect of the various allegations.

127. My final opinion regarding the role of Manoj Prabhakar in this regard is as under:-
(i) There is no evidence of any role by him in match fixing
(ii) I agree with CBI that he had close contacts and nexus with various bookies/punters.
(iii) Irrespective of the allegations established as at (ii) above, he is guilty of unbecoming conduct as a national level player in as much as he maintained frequent contacts with bookies/punters.  

Continue......

 
   

| Homepage | On Line Polls | Polling Results | Post Your | Messages FromRankings | 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 |