The Justice Mudgal Committee, appointed to probe the spot-fixing and betting scandal in the sixth edition of Indian Premier League, has cleared Board of Control for Cricket in India president-in-exile Narayanaswami Srinivasan of match-fixing charges and scuttling the investigations that followed the episode.
However, it could be temporary relief for him, as he could still find himself in the dock for not taking action against a particular person, referred to as Individual 3 in the report.
Referred to as Individual 13, the report, submitted to the Supreme Court, cleared the ICC chairman of involvement in any match-fixing activity in the cash-rich Twenty20 extravaganza of 2013.
'Individual 13 (Srinivasan): This individual is not involved with match fixing activity. This individual was not found to be involved in scuttling the investigations into match fixing,' the committee said, in its report to the Supreme Court.
"This individual (Srinivasan) along with four other BCCI officials was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3 but no action was taken against Individual 3 by any of the aforesaid officials who were aware of this infraction," the report stated.
The panel found proof that Srinivasan's son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, was indeed a Chennai Super Kings official, but only held him guilty of placing illegal bets.
'Individual 1 (Meiyappan): Investigations have confirmed that this individual was a team official of a franchisee. He was frequently meeting (individual 2) in his hotel room. This strengthens the conclusion of the Committee in its report dated 10.2.2014 that individual 1 was in close touch with individual 2. The findings about the betting activities of Meiyappan and that he was a team official stand confirmed,' says the report.
'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.
'Thus the Committee is of the view that due to the scientific evidence of voice matching and the testimony of security personnel recorded by the investigating team, the finding about the betting activities of individual 1 and the finding that he was a team official stand confirmed.'
IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman has been found guilty of being in touch with a bookie.
'Individual 12 (Sunder Raman): This individual knew a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in one season. This individual admitted knowing the contact of the bookies but however claimed to be unaware of his connection with betting activities. This individual also accepted that he had received information about the individual 1 and individual 11 (Raj Kundra) taking part in betting activities but was informed by the ICC-ACSU chief that this was not actionable information. This individual also accepted that this information was not conveyed to any other individual,' the report added.
Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra could also be in trouble as he also was found guilty of having contacts with bookies during IPL 6.
'Individual 11 (Raj Kundra): This individual was in touch with bookies 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 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. Individual 11 had introduced him (punter) to another bookie who dealt with larger stakes. Section 161 statement made by another player confirmed that individual 11 introduced him to a bookie. Materials on record indicated that individual 11 was placing bets or was at the minimum standing guarantee for his punter friend. These infractions also violate BCCI/IPL Anti-Corruption Code,' the panel told the Supreme Court.