REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER, BCCI

21. 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 opinion thereon.

22. Similarly, I have no jurisdiction also to enquire into or comment upon foreign players who have been indicted by the CBI in its report.

PARAMETERS OF MY REPORT

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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".

In 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:-

BCCI Official	Date	Place
i) Shri Kishore Rungta,Hony. Treasurer, BCCI	10th November, 2000	Delhi
Players
ii)Shri Ajay Sharma	18th November, 2000	Delhi
iii)Shri Manoj Prabhakar	11th November, 2000	Chennai
iv)Shri Mohd. Azharuddin	16th November, 2000	Hyderabad
v) Shri Ajay Jadeja	12th November, 2000	Chennai
vi)Shri Nayan Mongia	12th November, 2000	Chennai
Physiotherapist
vii) Dr. Ali Irani	12th November, 2000	Chennai
Groundsman
viii) Ram Adhar @ Choudhary of Delhi	9th November, 2000	Delhi

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. It is not been necessary for me to conduct any enquiry in respect of persons who have not been indicted by the CBI. In particular it is relevant to mention that CBI report has not indicted Navjot Singh Sidhu and the Delhi players except those who have been indicted as above. Similarly, CBI report has also exonerated Kapil Dev as did the Chandrachud Committee.

EVIDENCE OF NON-MATCH FIXING

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.
(i) Azharuddin's promises in respect of Titan Cup Series of 1996 (Page 25)
(ii) Azharuddin's promises in respect of the India's Tour to South Africa in 1996 (Page 27).
(iii) Hansie Cronje's promises during the same series (Page 28).
(iv) Azharuddin's promises in respect of the Sahara Cup Tournament in Toronto in 1997 (Page 28).
(v) Some of the information provided by Manoj Prabhakar proved incorrect (Page 33).
(vi) Azharuddin's promises in respect of the series in Sri Lanka in July, 1998 (Page 39).
(vii) Azharuddin's promises in respect of the Toronto Cup tournament in September-October, 1998 (Page 39).

Back  Next

Mail Cricket Editor