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

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