{"id":249092,"date":"2015-07-30T17:55:46","date_gmt":"2015-07-30T12:25:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tehelka.com\/?p=249092"},"modified":"2015-07-30T17:55:46","modified_gmt":"2015-07-30T12:25:46","slug":"not-guilty-yet-guilty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/not-guilty-yet-guilty\/","title":{"rendered":"Not Guilty, Yet Guilty"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Celebration
Celebration time<\/strong> Ankeet Chavan (right) is one of the three players to be cleared of all charges. Photo: AFP<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>
\nA bunch of individuals heaved a huge sigh of relief when the capital\u2019s lower court said that Delhi Police had no case against 33 of the 42 people accused in the IPL\u00a0\u00a0matchfixing scandal of 2013 (the other nine are foreign nationals and were not under trial in India). The three cricketers \u2014 S Sreesanth, Ankeet Anil Chavan and Ajit Chandila \u2014 were elated. Others who were happy included officials of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and N Srinivasan, head of the International Cricket Council, his cronies and loyalists.
\nFor people like Gurunath Meiyappan, Srinivasan\u2019s son-in-law, and Raj Kundra, the former part-owner of Rajasthan Royals, the judgment was godsent. The same was the case with Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings, the two teams in the Indian Premier League (IPL\u00a0) that were recently suspended for two years by the Supreme Court. Now, all those who were on the backfoot, facing a barrage of menacing bouncers, could claim again that IPL\u00a0was always \u2018squeaky clean\u2019.
\nHowever, there is a huge caveat. Despite the sessions court order of 25 July 2015 by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, the three cricketers, along with Srinivasan, Meiyappan, Kundra and the two IPL\u00a0franchisees can still be deemed guilty for four reasons. This is why the BCCI upheld the ban on the three cricketers.
\nOne, the country\u2019s highest court, Supreme Court (SC), concluded that they had committed several wrongs. The stature of apex court-appointed committees, Justice Mudgal Committee and Lodha Committee, which indicted them, is higher than that of the sessions court.
\nTwo, the accused mentioned above violated several rules related to corruption, illegal betting and matchfixing that were included in their contracts with the BCCIand IPL\u00a0\u00a0governing council. Bringing \u2018disrepute to the game of cricket\u2019 allows the Board to morally and legally \u2018fix\u2019 the accused. This was the basic point raised by the sc, and Mudgal and Lodha Committees.
\nThree, the case in the lower court dealt with \u2018criminal\u2019 consequences, and not the civil ones. Even if a high court or the sc absolves the accused cricketers and bookies of any criminal intent in the future, it will not dilute the past SC\u00a0orders against Srinivasan, Meiyappan, Kundra and the three cricketers.<\/p>\n

~Also Read~<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[egpost postid=”249131″ byline=”false”]<\/p>\n

Finally \u2014 and this is a crucial element that has escaped most critics and observers \u2014 Judge Krishna found several failures on the part of the three cricketers. She made a few disparaging remarks against the latter. However, her conclusion was that these misdemeanours did not conclusively prove that they were guilty under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code or Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) that were invoked by Delhi Police.
\nHIGHER\u00a0VS\u00a0LOWER\u00a0COURT<\/strong><\/span>
\nIt is ironic that while the sc penalised cricketers, officials, teams and team owners, a lower court found that there wasn\u2019t enough evidence against the cricketers. Even worse, the latter felt that there wasn\u2019t a case against the betters and bookies who were arrested by the police. After all, it was the same evidence that Delhi Police presented to the SC- appointed Mudgal Committee (which had legal sanctity), and the sessions court. So, why did the two reach contradictory conclusions? How does one legally reconcile the inherent, deep differences between the two?
\nLegal experts feel that the legal standing of even a committee appointed by the SC\u00a0is higher than that of the lower courts. Therefore, the weight of the conclusions reached by the Mudgal and Lodha Committees is heavier. It is akin to what the SC\u00a0said several times about environmental courts before the formation of the National Green Tribunal in 2010: In several judgments, including the famous MC Mehta vs Union of India case in 1986, the apex court expressed a desire that such niche courts should possess civil and criminal jurisdiction.
\nLawyers aver that although the two cases were related to match fixing in IPL\u00a0, the issues before the SC-appointed committees and sessions court were quite different, involved a common cast of characters and dealt with almost the same evidence. The core concern of the Mudgal Committee was to find out if the cricketers, teams and owners breach the rules and regulations mentioned in their contracts with the BCCI\u00a0\u00a0or\u00a0IPL\u00a0. Judge Krishna was more bothered about the criminality (or otherwise) of the actions of the cricketers and bookies under the specific sections of IPC\u00a0and MCOCA.
\nIn simplistic terms, the difference is comparable to that between civil and criminal cases. Justice Mudgal had to only prove that the intent was wrong; he was, in a way, bothered about the morality of the conduct of individuals. However, Judge Krishna dealt with criminalities, where the sentence could be stiff. Hence, for her, the evidence against the accused had to be water-tight. In legal parlance, the larger the crime and higher the possible sentence, the stronger has to be the evidence.
\nDelhi Police sought to press charges under mcoca, which is a stringent act, and prove that the bookies and cricketers were part of a larger crime syndicate headed by Dawood Ibrahim, India\u2019s most-wanted man, and Chhota Shakeel, Dawood\u2019s right-hand man. The police established a chart and chain-ofcommand; at the top was the Dawood-Shakeel \u2018core syndicate\u2019, followed by mega bookies, their conduits and associates, and the compromised players.
\nJudge Krishna wasn\u2019t convinced about it. She said that \u2018organised crime syndicate\u2019 meant \u201ca group of two or more persons acting either singly or collectively as a syndicate or gang indulging in activities of organised crime.\u201d But the evidence showed that Indian authorities had filed five FIRs (first information reports) or chargesheeted Dawood and Shakeel on five occasions since 2003. Of these, four were against Shakeel and his gang members, but didn\u2019t mention Dawood.
\n\u201cAll these (four) FIRs pertain to murder, extortion, (and) threat but in none of these firs it has been alleged that Chhota Shakeel was alleged to be involved in these offences as part of crime syndicate headed by Dawood. Rather, from the perusal of the firs and the chargesheets, what emerges is that Chhota Shakeel was the don and was running the independent crime syndicate along with other accused mentioned in those firs. In none of these cases, he has been shown as a part of crime syndicate with Dawood Ibrahim,\u201d said Judge Krishna in her order.
\n
\n

\"Walking
Walking free<\/strong> Ajit Chandila was also acquitted by the trial court. Photo: AFP<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>
\nIn addition, Delhi Police tried to prove that the crucial link in the chain-of-command between Dawood and Shakeel and the mega bookies was Dubai-based Javed Chutani alias \u2018Doctor\u2019. However, Judge Krishna said that Chutani\u2019s identity was not established; he wasn\u2019t even arrested in this case. The only link between him and Dawood was a phone conversation (26 March 2013) between a Pakistan mobile number (+923332064488) which belonged to Dawood and Shakeel, and a Dubai one (+971504560616). In the conversation, one of the three speakers introduced someone as Chutani.
\nAs the judge noted, \u201cFrom the said conversation no inference whatsoever can be drawn that Javed Chutani was a member of organised crime syndicate. An innocuous interjection cannot be sufficient to conclude that this Javed Chutani was a partner in crime with Dawood\/Chota Shakeel.\u201d She added, \u201cNone of the other accused are claimed to be in direct or indirect touch with Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Shakeel. Once the only link between Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Shakeel, and other accused is not established, it cannot be said that whatever the activities that were being carried out by all other accused, was as part of organised crime syndicate.\u201d
\nAnother issue to ponder: The police said that the Pakistan number was used by both Dawood, based in Pakistan, and Shakeel, based in Dubai. \u201cIt is difficult to comprehend as to how the same mobile number was being used by two persons who were placed in different countries,\u201d said the sessions court order. The judge rejected the police explanation that the mobile had roaming facility and \u201cit was being taken by the concerned person with him while travelling to Dubai.\u201d
\nCOURT\u00a0VS\u00a0BCCI\u00a0&\u00a0IPL<\/span><\/strong>
\nIn its report, the Justice Mudgal Committee maintained that the conduct of the errant players and team owners would be determined by the several ipl rules that applied to players, player support personnel and franchisees. These included IPL\u00a0Operational Rules,IPL\u00a0 Regulation,IPL\u00a0Anti Corruption Code, IPL\u00a0Code of Conduct for Players and Match Officials, and franchisee agreements. For instance, the Operational Rules state that \u201ceach person\u2026 shall not, whether during a Match or otherwise, act or omit to act in any way which would or might reasonably be anticipated to have an adverse impact on the image and\/ or reputation of such Person, any Team, any Player, and Team Official, the bcci, the League and\/or the Game or which would bring any of the foregoing into disrepute.\u201d<\/p>\n

~Also Read~<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

[egpost postid=”248981″ byline=”false”]<\/p>\n

The Anti Corruption Code specifies the various acts that spoil the image of what used to be a gentleman\u2019s game. These included fixing the result of a match; seeking, accepting or offering a bribe or reward to fix a game; cajoling anyone to commit such an offence; illegal betting; misuse of inside information like pitch conditions or team constitution; and acceptance of gifts and payments. As per the Justice Mudgal report, the cricketing trio, along with Meiyappan and Kundra, were guilty of several of these charges.
\nOn the basis of the above conclusions, the Lodha Committee set out to figure out the punishment for Meiyappan and Kundra, as also the two teams they represented \u2014 Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings. While the teams were suspended for two years, the two individuals received a life ban. There is no way any court, except the larger bench of sc, can overturn these conclusions, which have the legal sanctity of the apex court. Thus the bcci found it tough to remove the ban on the three cricketers, although the latter pleaded for a revocation.
\nA twist in the tale: The issue of whether to remove the ban will be decided by Neeraj Kumar, who heads the anti-corruption division in the BCCI. Coincidentally, it was the Delhi Police team headed by Kumar which investigated the matchfixing charges.
\nLOWER\u00a0COURT\u00a0VERSUS\u00a0LOWER\u00a0COURT<\/strong><\/span>
\nIn her judgment, Judge Krishna has inadvertently \u2014 or possibly deliberately \u2014 pointed a finger at the three cricketers. These observations prove the guilt of the trio as per BCCI\u00a0and IPL\u00a0rules. For example, in the case of Chandila, she said, \u201cMere agreement to underplay in itself would not fall within the definition of \u2018unlawful activity\u2019 which is also an essential ingredient for an offence to be held as organised crime (under MCOCA). Simply receiving gifts or watches or sunglasses… can neither be held as consideration for matchfixing, nor can it be termed a crime.\u201d
\nBut all the above actions would tantamount to guilt as per the BCCI\u00a0and IPL\u00a0\u00a0rules, and the code of conduct for the players. One should also remember that the evidence with Delhi Police included Chandila\u2019s admission that he received Rs 12 lakh for spot-fixing in 2012, but returned the money as he wasn\u2019t able to underperform. The police found one cheque of Rs 4 lakh was debited to the account of Sunil Bhatia, who was linked to the bookies, and two cheques of Rs 4 lakh each were recovered from Bhatia. Both these cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
\nIn the case of Sreesanth, the order talked about a conversation (9 May 2013) between P Jiju Janardhanan, a close friend of the cricketer, and Chandresh Patel alias Chand, a bookie. In it Jiju tells Patel, \u201cHe is a little stubborn about this. He is playing after a long time and he is risking time\u2026 Maine usko samjha diya (I have explained it to him) but he did not want to take risk.\u201d This conversation, stated the order, proved that \u201cSreesanth was not willing to fix the over since he had come to play the game after a long time and was not willing to take a risk.\u201d But in the eyes of the bcci the mere fact that the fast bowler was talking indirectly to bookies is a crime.
\nThis is what the order said about Chavan: \u201cFirst and foremost, the call intercepts may show that he was known to Ajit Chandila and Chandresh Patel and had even met Jitender Jain, the bookie, but there is no proof whatsoever to show that 60,00,000 were paid to him. There is also no evidence that he did not perform in the match to the best of his capacity.\u201d For the BCCI\u00a0and Justice Mudgal Committee though, such acts infringed the players\u2019 code of conduct.
\nClearly, the \u2018not guilty\u2019 verdict against the three cricketers or rather the fact that the sessions court did not find a prima facie case against them may only prove, at least for the time being, that they did not commit any criminal acts under specific sections of the IPC\u00a0and MCOCA. But it still establishes that they, and others, brought, disrepute to the game, and flouted IPL\u00a0\u00a0norms. Who knows, in the near future, the higher courts may find them guilty of criminal charges too!
\neditor@tehelka.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2018Not guilty,\u2019 said the sessions court in the IPL matchfixing case. But the exonerated cricketers and IPL team owners are morally culpable for violating the rules of the game,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":78,"featured_media":249101,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[56],"tags":[9373,9374,2516,9240,9241,1470,6472,9375,9242,9249,6475,6476,6478],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249092"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/users\/78"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249092\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}