JUSTICE-MUDGAL-IPL-PROBE-COMMITTEE-REPORT-final-feb-8

Recommendations

Info

JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201445for the information about the team composition but herefused and didn’t give any information because he was notsure for what the information was required. Later in manyoccasions he used to call Mr. Sidharth Trivedi asking aboutthe pitch conditions but he used to avoid him and didn’tgive any information. He stated further that there was oneoccasion when Mr. Umesh Goenka called him and statedthat Mr. Raj Kundra was aware of him asking all theseinformation from Mr. Sidharth Trivedi.In his statement recorded on 05.06.2013 before the DelhiPolice, Mr. Raj Kundra admits to placing friendly wager ofnot more than Rs. 2 Lakhs on some matches in IPL 6through his friend Mr. Umesh Goenka as well as of havingintroduced Mr. Umesh Goenka to one Kaku. However, hedenied having approached or asking Mr. Umesh Goenka toapproach these players to spot fix. This statement recordedunder Section 161 Cr.P.C. was subsequently sought to bewithdrawn by Mr. Raj Kundra by a letter, a copy of whichhas been placed before this Committee.The Delhi Police informed the Committee that based onsuch disclosures made by Mr. Umesh Goenka, Mr. RajKundra and Mr. Sidharth Trivedi they had forwarded thisinformation to Jaipur Police vide letter dated 25.06.2013for necessary action.The Delhi Police on 09.05.2013 registered FIR No. 20/2013u/s 120 B/420. Subsequently on 03.06.2013 after
JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE 201446obtaining due approval from the competent authority,Section 3 and 4 of the MCOCA were added in the said case.The statement of Mr. Raj Kundra was recorded on05.06.2013 by the Delhi Police. This statement of Mr. RajKundra, which is on record before the Committee does notindicate that the statement was recorded under theprovisions of Section 18 of the MCOCA. It is surprising thatinspite of addition of MCOCA provisions, the Delhi Policedid not take any steps whatsoever to get the statementrecorded under Section 18 of the MCOCA nor was anystatement of Mr. Raj Kundra recorded under Section 164 ofthe Cr.P.C. It is on 25.06.2013, i.e. after 20 days, that theDelhi Police referred the matter to Jaipur Police forinvestigation. No action is thereafter found to have beentaken in connection with Mr. Raj Kundra, either by theDelhi Police or the Jaipur Police.There seems to have been an effort to cover up theinvolvement of Mr. Raj Kundra in betting. In terms of theregulations in force of the BCCI, even legal betting is notpermitted on the part of an owner of a franchisee. Nobenefit would accrue to Mr. Raj Kundra by an attempt toshow that bets were placed through legal betting methodsin other countries. There are materials on record whichjustify an appropriate investigation to ascertain theculpability of Mr. Raj Kundra and his wife Ms. ShilpaShetty in placing bets as owner of a franchisee in IPL.Any such culpability on the part of the Kundras wouldfasten liability on the franchisee, Jaipur IPL Cricket
Page 1 and 2: 2014JUSTICE MUDGALIPL PROBE COMMITT
Page 3 and 4: JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE
Page 45: JUSTICE MUDGAL IPL PROBE COMMITTEE

JUSTICE-MUDGAL-IPL-PROBE-COMMITTEE-REPORT-final-feb-8

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?