Facebook Pixel Code

IPL case: Gurunath Meiyappan, Raj Kundra indicted

The justice Mukul Mudgal probe panel report has cleared ICC chairman N Srinivasan of any involvement in fixing or betting…

N Srinivasan, BCCI

The justice Mukul Mudgal probe panel report has cleared ICC chairman N Srinivasan of any involvement in fixing or betting and has said that he didn’t try to scuttle investigations into the IPL match-fixing scandal. The report does say, however, that Srinivasan, along with four other BCCI officials, took no action despite being aware of a code of violation by an unnamed player.

The report also tabled the misdemeanours of three other individuals: Sunder Raman, chief operating officer of IPL, Gurunath Meiyappan, Srinivasan’s son-in-law and team official of IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings, and Raj Kundra, co-owner of the Rajasthan Royals. It said

Raman had contacted a bookie eight times in one season of IPL and that he was aware of involvement of Kundra and Meiyappan in betting. The report establishes that Meiyappan was a team official of Chennai Super Kings and indulged in betting and says that Kundra too was involved in betting.

The index of the report, 29 pages long, refers to four individuals in which Meiyappan is individual No. 1, Kundra No. 11, Raman No. 12 and Srinivasan No. 13.

graph-mudgal

The report says of Srinivasan that he “was not involved with match-fixing.”

“This individual was not found involved in scuttling the investigations into match fixing.” However, it goes on to say that “this individual along with four other BCCI officials was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct but no action was taken against Individual 3 by any of the aforesaid officials who were aware of this infraction”. Individual 3 is a player mentioned in the report but whose name has been omitted.

The Indian board reacted swiftly to the revelations. On Srinivasan’s silence about the alleged code of violation by a player, BCCI secretary Sanjay Patel said: “It would be wrong to interpret it that way. First, people started to say he (Srinivasan) was into fixing. Now, after the revelation is made by the court, which puts the BCCI and Srinivasan in good terms, people are highlighting this code of conduct issue… There might be some technical breaches but you can’t take action or malign an individual on basis of that… Also, we should wait for the final order from the Supreme Court.”

On his part, Raman “admitted” that he knew a contact of the bookie but claimed that to be “unaware of his connection with betting activities”.
Patel, BCCI’s secretary, said that the board will seek “clarification” from Raman. “We will definitely ask Sundar Raman to explain his position. I haven’t read the full report yet but the portion I’ve read says that Sundar Raman had informed the matter to two Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) officials but didn’t mention it to anyone else. Is that a crime? If you go to the police to report a misdoing, will you be hauled up for not going to the police commissioner! At the same time, let me make it clear, BCCI will spare none.”

After the initial arrest of the cricketers like S Sreesanth, Meiyappan was the first of the new lot to be taken into custody by the Mumbai police.
Referring to him as individual 1, the report says: “The forensic report of the voice sample analysis further confirms the voice of this individual in the conversation with the person acting as a go-between between this individual and bookies. Consequently, the divergence in the two reports dated 8.2.2014 and 9.2.2014 about the voice sample belonging to this Individual 1 gets resolved and the reports thus becomes unanimous about the betting activity of this individual. No material is available on record to show that this individual is involved in match fixing.”

Of individual 11, Kundra, the report says, “This individual was in touch with bookies about betting and thus by not reporting contact about betting and thus by not reporting contact with the bookie has violated BCCI/IPL Anti-Corruption Code. The Committee also found that the investigation against this individual was abruptly and without reason stopped by the Rajasthan Police upon receiving the case papers from Delhi Police. The Committee found that a friend of Individual 11 was a known punter. The said punter has given a section 164 statement to the effect that he was placing bets on behalf of Individual 11. Section 161 statement made by another player confirmed that Individual 11 introduced him to a bookie.”

The cricket board pointed out they have “nothing to hide” and that they have already suspended Kundra and Meiyappan.

Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes, and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.

First published on: 18-11-2014 at 04:42 IST
Market Data
Market Data
Today’s Most Popular Stories ×