REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER, BCCI

71. When this passage was read out to Ajay Sharma, he stated that he had already stated before me that a large part of his statement as recorded by the CBI about his contacts with bookies/punters on the one hand and the players on the other is incorrect and wrongly recorded by CBI. He denied that he had acted as conduit between the players and the betting syndicates in fixing matches.

72. In reply to my last query whether he would like to add anything further, Ajay Sharma stated that his close friendship with Azharuddin had been misinterpreted on the basis of incorrect evidence and inferences that it related to match fixing etc. Neither Ajay Sharma nor Azharuddin had done any such thing. Ajay Sharma added that he had devoted the best years of his life to the game of cricket and had scored more than 10,000 runs in first class matches. His average in first class and international matches put together is 68.50. Ajay Sharma stated that this record is third in the world, the first being of Sir Donald Bradman and the second of Vijay Merchant. Ajay Sharma added that he had scored 31 centuries in Ranji matches, which is the best record in India. He concluded, "I have never helped in match fixing. I am not aware of any other player also resorting to match fixing".

73. The pointed issue in this inquiry is not the capability or record of the concerned players. In fact, the very fact that all the five players involved in this enquiry were in the national team clearly shows that each one of them had an excellent record in their own areas of specialisation in the game of cricket. The enquiry, on the other hand, is about misconduct or offence committed by them in the matter of match fixing and betting and also maintaining undesirable and frequent contacts with bookies/punters which was unbecoming for a national level player like Ajay Sharma.

74. Therefore, while I take my hat off for the excellent record of the concerned players, including Ajay Sharma, I have to fault them where the evidence indicates their culpability. Mike Tyson is a great boxer; but he had to pay the price when he committed a crime. Ben Johnson had to suffer also.

75. My final opinion regarding the role of Ajay Sharma in this regard is as under:-
(i) I agree with the CBI that there is no evidence of any role by him in fixing matches in which he had played.
(ii) I agree with the CBI that he had close contacts and nexus with bookies/punters M.K. Gupta and Ajay Gupta and his associates and acted as a conduit between players and the betting syndicates in fixing matches.
(iii) Irrespective of the allegations established as above, he is guilty also of unbecoming conduct amounting to misconduct as a national level player in as much as he maintained frequent and undesirable contacts with bookies/punters.

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.

Back  Next

Mail Cricket Editor