"The committee is also of the opinion that the franchise owner of CSK (India Cement) is responsible for failing to ensure Meiyappan (a team official) had complied with the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code, IPL Operational Rules. IPL Regulations and hence the franchise's actions are in violation of Section 4.4.1 of the IPL Operational Rules and Clause 11.3 of the franchisee's agreement," the panel said.
"It is for the Supreme Court to decide what action, if any, is to be taken pursuant to this report," it told a Bench of Justices AK Patnaik and FMI Kalifulla.
The inquiry panel also flagged for the SC's attention serious questions of conflict of interest raised against Srinivasan, both inside and outside the BCCI.
"While it is evident that the questions raised before us about conflict of interest are serious and may have large-scale ramifications on the functioning of cricket, we do not deem it proper to pronounce our opinion on this issue as it is not directly in our terms of reference," it said.
The report, presented to the court by counsel Gautam Bharadwaj and Vidushpat Singhania, said Meiyappan indulged in betting through Vindu Dara Singh, who in turn was in direct touch with bookies and punters like Vikram Aggarwal.
"Bets were placed by Meiyappan not only in favour of CSK but also against it," it said, basing its conclusion on various evidence including telephone intercepts.
It clarified that it was for the concerned criminal courts to determine whether Meiyappan and Vindoo were guilty of the offences alleged against them by various police forces in pending cases. However, it indicted both India Cements and CSK for distancing themselves from Meiyappan's activities when it was clearly established by the evidence that he was a team official. CSK had pleaded that the team should not be penalized for actions of Meiyappan.
"The franchisee owners (India Cement) had defended the actions of the franchisee by contending/stating that Gurunath Meiyappan was not related in any way with the franchisee. The stand taken by the franchisee appears to be contradicting the factual position," the Committee said.
It faulted Meiyappan for flouting IPL rules as well as the IPL code of conduct for players and team officials by bringing the game of cricket into disrepute and the IPL anti-corruption code by indulging in betting.
The match between Rajasthan Royals and CSK at Jaipur on May 12, 2013 needed to be thoroughly probed to see whether there was any merit in the allegation that it had been fixed, the panel said. Meiyappan and CSK apart, "allegations of betting and spot-fixing against Raj Kundra, team owners of Jaipur Cricket Private Limited, need to be probed further," the panel said.
"We are clearly of the view that statements under Section 164 criminal procedure code by Umesh Goenka clearly required further and serious investigations as Raj Kundra and his wife Shilpa Shetty are part owners of Rajasthan Royals," it said. Despite the controversies and scandals, the committee felt that IPL was a good format which needed to be protected as players have benefited from it.
Guru's offences:
According to the Justice Mudgal Probe Committee, Gurunath Meiyappan was found in violation of the following IPL rules...
For bringing the game into disrepute
Section 2.2.1 (of IPL Operational Rules): Each franchisee shall procure that its team shall in good faith compete to the best of its ability ... in each match it participates.
Section 2.14: Each person shall not ... act or omit to act in any way which would or might reasonably be anticipated to have an adverse affect on the image and/or reputation of ... any player, any official, the BCCI, the League and/or the game or which would otherwise bring any of the foregoing into disrepute.
Betting
Article 2.2.1 (of IPL Anti Corruption Code): Placing, accepting, laying or otherwise entering into any bet with any other party (whether individual, company or otherwise) in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event.
Article 2.2.2: Soliciting, including, enticing, instructing, persuading, encouraging, facilitating or authorising any other party to enter into a bet for the direct or indirect benefit of the participant in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event.
Article 2.2.3: Ensuring the occurrence of a particular incident in a match or event, which occurrence is to the participant's knowledge the subject of a bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any reward.
For bringing the game into disrepute
Articles 2.4.4 (of IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials): Where the facts of the alleged incident are not adequately or clearly covered by any of the above offences, conduct that either; (a) is contrary to the spirit of the game; or (b) brings the game into disrepute.
"The Committee is (also) of the view that if the allegations of betting against Mr. Raj Kundra and Ms. (Shilpa) Shetty who are part owners of Rajasthan Royals, stand proved the same would constitute a serious infraction of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 of the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct."
0 comments:
Post a Comment