IPL spot-fixing case: All charges dropped against Sreesanth, Chandila and Chavan

IPL spot-fixing case: All charges dropped against Sreesanth, Chandila and Chavan


آئی پی ایل کرپشن سکینڈل، سری سانتھ سمیت تین کھلاڑی الزامات سے بری

دہلی(اُردو پوائنٹ اخبارتازہ ترین۔25جولائی۔2015ء)آئی پی ایل کرپشن سکینڈل بھارتی عدالت نے راجھستان رائلز کے کرکٹرز سری سانتھ، اجیت چنڈیلا اور انکیت چون کو بری کر دیا۔دہلی کی پٹیالہ ہاوس عدالت نے آئی پی ایل کرپشن سکینڈل میں کرکٹرز سری سانتھ، انکیت چون اور اجیت چنڈیلا کو بری کرنے کا فیصلہ سنایا۔ عدالت نے اپنے فیصلے میں قرار دیا کہ تینوں کھلاڑیوں کے خلاف اسپاٹ فکسنگ کے ثبوت نہیں ملے۔ مئی دو ہزار تیرہ میں دہلی پولیس نے آئی پی ایل فرنچائز راجھستان رائلز کے کھلاڑیوں شانتھا کمارن، سری سانتھ ، انکیت چون اور اجیت چنڈیلا کو سات بکیوں سمیت گرفتار کیا تھا۔تینوں کھلاڑیوں پر سپاٹ فکسنگ اور کھیل کی ساکھ کو نقصان پہنچانے کا الزام تھا تاہم دہلی پولیس عدالت میں ان الزامات کے ثبوت پیش نہ کر سکی۔ رہائی پانے والے کھلاڑیوں کا کہنا تھا کہ وہ عدالت کے فیصلے سے بہت خوش ہیں اور امید کرتے ہیں کہ دوبارہ انڈین پریمئیر لیگ میں اپنی فرنچائز کی نمائندگی کریں گے۔

Charges against cricketers S Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan have been dropped after a hearing on the framing of charges in the IPL spot-fixing case in Delhi High Court today. Earlier, media reports suggested that the Delhi Police told the court that their investigation was upheld by the Supreme Court – and demanded the filing of fresh charges after they went through the Mudgal and Lodha panel findings. However, the court categorically stated that the three players be discharged. All three cricketers were representing IPL team Rajasthan Royals when the scandal broke – and were arrested in May 2013 for alleged spot fixing in some matches of IPL 6.
Earlier, the case – which also includes underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and his aide Chhota Shakeel – was meant to be heard on 29 June.The court had granted bail to Sreesanth, Chavan and various others accused for lack of evidence against them under the provisions of stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).Other accused, including Chandila, were also granted bail later on by the court.The police, in its charge sheet, had claimed that Dawood and Shakeel, who have been “controlling the fixing and betting market” in cricket in India, were behind IPL spot-fixing.
Recommended: IPL spot-fixing scandal — Top-10 developments
Special Cell of Delhi Police had named 42 accused in the case in its charge sheet out of whom six are absconding. The investigation carried out by police in the case had earlier come under scanner of the court which had questioned its theory of “match fixing”, saying there was prima facie no evidence showing that matches were fixed by the accused. During the arguments on framing of charges in the case, the police had referred to telephonic conversations among the accused to buttress their claim that they were involved in match fixing and betting. It had also alleged that call detail records clearly reflect the linkage of accused persons who were part of a crime syndicate to generate money. Meanwhile, the advocates representing the accused had countered the police’s submissions contending that the probe had failed to show commission of any prima facie offence by their clients.
The defence counsel had also argued that there was prima facie no evidence to frame charges in the case. The court had earlier declared Dawood and Shakeel as proclaimed offenders as they are evading arrest in the matter. Police had told the court that properties of Dawood and Shakeel in Mumbai have already been attached in connection with the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case and that they have not visited India since 1993. Police had informed the court that Dawood had properties in his name at Dongri in Mumbai whereas Shakeel owned properties in Nagpada there.
The court had earlier issued non-bailable warrants against Dawood and Shakeel, Pakistan-based Javed Chutani, Salman alias Master and Ehteysham, who all are considered to be Dawood’s associates. The police had filed a 6,000-page charge sheet against various accused in the case. It had also filed supplementary charge sheet later on. Additional Sessions Judge Neena Bansal Krishna had on 23 May reserved that day for the order on framing of charges in the case and had asked the counsel appearing for the accused to file their written arguments, if any, by 6 June.