REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER, BCCI
201. From the above also it would be seen that Nayan Mongia, who was within earshot when the alleged incident took place, has totally refuted the allegation made by Manoj Prabhakar.
202. In the statement recorded by the CBI as well as by me, Nayan Mongia stated that no selector had asked for money from him to select him nor did he ever make such a statement. He had also never cast any allegation on Ajit Wadekar for any monetary transactions and he had never made such statement.
203. Before the CBI as well as me, Mongia stated that he had never come across any activity of match fixing and betting in respect of Indian players. He added that if such activities were going on without his knowledge, he cannot obviously know about that. He had never been approached by any player, former player, bookie or punter to underperform or throw away match for a consideration. Any allegation about him in this regard is false and baseless and he denies the same strongly/vehemently.
204. In the statement recorded by me, Nayan Mongia added the following, which does not figure in the statement recorded by the CBI.
"In this context, I would like to mention that after gaining experience at the international level, from 1995-96 till now, I have never dropped a catch nor missed a stumping chance. I am quite confident that if video-tapes of all the matches in which I have played are viewed not a single lapse of that type can been seen. I may add therefore that such allegations about me have deeply affected my sentiment and I am upset over such false allegations".
205. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Nayan Mongia had stated in respect of the Kanpur match that it was decided uniformly by the team that wicket should not fall at any cost. Since these deliberations took place in his presence, he disclosed the same to Manoj Prabhakar, who was then batting with Mongia. Both of them followed the above mentioned instructions but to the utter surprise of Mongia himself and Manoj Prabhakar, they were banned for the next two matches for batting slow. Mongia told the CBI that this was one incident in his entire career which haunted him because he was punished for no fault of his. When CBI asked as to who exactly gave instructions to bat slow, Mongia told CBI that he did not remember but there as general talk in the dressing room.
206. In the statement recorded by me, Mongia confirmed the statement recorded by CBI. He added some more matters in this regard also which are reproduced below.
"Regarding the Kanpur match against West Indies, I confirm the statement recorded by CBI. I would like to add that this happened in 1994 which was the second series of my carrier and the question my wilfully doing any wrong things which would have jeopardised my whole career did not arise. When I told this to CBI that the decision not to lose wickets was taken informally by the team what I meant was that on such occasions, the Manager and Captain consult the senior cricketers and among them a decision is taken, which is conveyed to the other players in the pavilion and also to the batsmen in the field in the pretext of taking to them gloves, water etc. When I left to bat, this was the general view taken.
'I have no idea as to how many overs were left at that time and how I and Manoj Prabhakar proceeded to score, except that it was slow and we remained not out till the end.
'However, there is something missing in the CBI statement which I had conveyed to them. In one day series, qualifying teams are not decided solely on mere winning or losing of matches, but also by other calculations, except in the final. There is a method of points and quotients which are decided upon for each team based on wickets remaining, scoring rates etc. At that stage of the match, it was clear that India could never win the match. On the other hand, if larger Indian wickets remain, the question of quotients would have helped us. Not losing wickets was the general view among the players. This is what I conveyed to Manoj Prabhakar.
The method of calculating quotients is very complicated and I am not fully aware of the process.
Another submission, I would like to make is that if the Manager and the Captain in the pavilion felt that we had to score faster, they could have easily sent a message to us to that effect. The very fact that no such thing was done, I submit, confirms that this was the general view and the decision taken at that time.
Another submission, I would like to make is that I have already been punished after that match as I was dropped for two matches".
207. Towards the end of his statement recorded by me, Mongia stated that he had never been involved with any bookie/punter or any other undesirable person. He had faithfully shown in the tax returns his cricket, advertisement etc. receipts. He added that he is probably one of the highest tax payers in Baroda in his individual capacity. He had also the family business of dealing in surgical materials trading which also gives him and family a reasonably good income. He said he was a contented man and had therefore no need to be avaricious to make extra money in any wrong manner.
208. Finally, he confirmed what appears in his further statement recorded by the CBI on 6th July, 2000 wherein he stated that he had never placed any bet in any match whether in India or abroad. In particular, he denied any involvement in this regard with Mohd. Azharuddin and added that he had never received any money from Azharuddin, Ajay Sharma or any bookie. He had no idea whether Titan Cup match in 1996 between India - South Africa at Rajkot and Pepsi Cup match between India - Pakistan in Jaipur in 1999 were fixed or not. He was not involved in any dealings during these matches.
209. CBI has analysed the evidence against Nayan Mongia at Pages 121-123 of the report. After setting out a suspicion that arose about him due to the statements of certain persons, CBI has virtually concluded that there is no presentable case again him. In particular, CBI has concluded as under:
i) The evidence against Mongia is not all that strong (Page 121).
ii) His telephone analysis does not disclose any contacts with known bookies (Page 122).
iii) The evidence against Mongia is not strong (Page 121). There is no direct evidence of any player/bookie having paid Mongia money to underperform (Page 122).
iv) Mongia was not as valuable as Azharuddin or Jadeja to be approached individually (Page 122).
210. The only aspect on which CBI has faulted Mongia is the instruction he conveyed to Manoj Prabhakar during the India-West Indies one-dayer in Kanpur in 1994, which, according to CBI, "does bring him under strong suspicion".
211. Regarding this, Nayan Mongia has given a reasonably satisfactory explanation. It was obvious that there was some discussion in the dressing room/pavilion regarding not losing any further wicket and this was conveyed, may be under a mistaken impression, by Nayan Mongia to Manoj Prabhakar. In any event, if the Manager or the Captain in the pavilion felt that Nayan Mongia and Manoj Prabhakar had to score fast, they could have easily sent them a message to that effect. I am inclined to agree with Mongia that the fact that no such thing was done confirms that not losing wickets and not going for runs was the general view and decision taken at that time. Nayan Mongia is obviously not involved in match fixing or betting. He had no contacts with any bookie/punter. Even assuming that a lapse was committed by him on account of slow scoring in the Kanpur match, he has received adequate punishment therefor by being banned from two matches thereafter.
212. I would, therefore, hold the charge against Nayan Mongia not proved and I exonerate him.
Dr. ALI IRANI
213. We now come to Dr. Ali Irani, the physiotherapist of the Indian team, who was nicknamed by the team as mother hen. The reason for this was that whenever the team went out for physical exercise, he used to lead the team and the other members used to follow him like chicks. This was disclosed to me by Dr. Ali Irani himself in a tone which had justifiably, satisfaction as well as pride in it.
214. CBI has set out the salient features of his statement at Pages 71-76. CBI has made available to me a copy of his full statement, which is placed at pages 021-025 of Vol.-II. His statement, as recorded by me is at pages of 089-095 Volume-III.
215. Dr. Irani was physiotherapist with the Indian team from 1987 to 1997 except for a gap of around 6 months in between.
216. In the statement recorded by the CBI, he stated that it was during the India-West Indies one-day international in Kanpur that everyone for the time felt that something was wrong. He further added before the CBI as under:
"In that match Manoj Prabhakar and Nayan Mongia did not chase the target and simply played out the remaining balls. It looked as if they were batting to play out the balls rather than winning the match and it was also peculiar that Ajit Wadekar who was the coach of the team and who should have been watching the match and passing necessary instructions was sitting in the dressing-room unmindful of what was happening on the ground. I further state that people were so upset that one of the selectors, namely G.R. Vishwanath, even came to the dressing room and shouted at Ajit Wadekar, asking him whether he knew what was going on in the field and whether he had passed any instructions for the same.
After the match was over when Manoj Prabhakar came into the dressing room he said that Nayan Mongia had asked him to play out the remaining balls as that was the instructions from the dressing room. When Nayan Mongia was asked about it he said that he had been told to say so but who had told him to say so he could not say. That evening when the team was returning after dinner by bus, Manoj Prabhakar was abusing Ajit Wadekar and Azhar, probably because he knew that a decision to drop him and Nayan Mongia for the next two matches had been taken, by them".
217. Regarding the above, Dr. Irani made different statement before me as under:
"With reference to my statement recorded by the CBI regarding the Kanpur match in 1994 between India and West Indies, I was inside the physiotherapy room, treating someone. I only saw GR Vishwanath asking Ajit Wadekar whether he had passed on instructions for what was going on in the field. Ajit Wadekar went out with GR Vishwanath and I do not know what transpired outside. It is not correct that Manoj Prabhakar told me in the dressing room that Nayan Mongia had asked him to play out the remaining balls as that was the instructions from the dressing room. In the evening when we were going for an official team dinner, I heard Manoj Prabhakar shouting, particularly at no one, "You have stepped on the tail of a snake". I do not know about whom he was saying this".
218. From the demeanour of Dr. Irani during the examination, I am of the view that Dr. Irani had told the truth to the CBI but partly went back on it before me and gave a different version before me. Presence of mind and absence of body obviously dictated his attitude before me.
219. Regarding certain undesirable persons gaining entry into the dressing room, Dr. Irani stated as under before the CBI:
"I may further state that certain undesirable characters were gaining entry into the dressing room as there have been instances of Ajit Wadekar asking someone, who claimed to be close to Kapil Dev, to get out of the dressing room. In fact, team members, especially from the South, in a Test Match against Sri Lanka in 1997 strongly objected to the presence of Ajay Sharma, a former Indian player, in the dressing room. I once also saw Ajay Sharma in Chandigarh when the Indian Team was playing there. Ajay Sharma had brought some bats for Azharuddin but during that match Azhar was down with fever and he could not play, so he left the place with Ajay Sharma. It was well known that Ajay Sharma was very close to Azhar".
220. When the aforesaid portion was read out to Dr. Irani, he stated as under in the statement recorded by me.
"Regarding Ajit Wadekar shouting at a person, who claimed to be close to Kapil Dev and asking him to get out of the dressing room, the rule is that only players, ex-players and Board officials can be in the dressing room. Occasionally, however, some unauthorised persons, claiming to be friends of some player or the other would try to enter the dressing room and mostly they were not allowed to enter.
'The incident relating to Ajay Sharma being in the dressing room and other players objecting to that took place in Delhi and not in Sri Lanka. The objection in this regard was mainly by Madan Lal who was the coach. It was not players from the South.
'Regarding the Chandigarh incident, I confirm that I did tell the CBI about Ajay Sharma bringing some bats for Azharuddin and leaving with Azharuddin when Azharuddin developed fever and could not play. This was during the Challengers Trophy played among India, India A and India B in 1996. I did tell the CBI it was well known that Ajay Sharma was very close to Azhar."
Back Next
Mail Cricket Editor
