HC notice to Sreesanth, others in IPL-6 spot fixing case

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Nov 18 2015 | 3:02 PM IST
Delhi High Court today sought the responses of suspended cricketers S Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan and 33 others on a plea by the city police challenging their discharge by a trial court in the 2013 IPL-6 spot fixing scandal case.
Justice Siddharth Mridul issued notice to all the 36 respondents who were given a clean chit by the trial court on July 25 and sought their replies by December 16, the next date of hearing.
The high court also called for the trial court records on the appeal filed by Delhi Police which had moved the appeal on September 2.
The trial court's verdict had said the investigators had failed to gather "all necessary ingredients to establish a prima facie case" under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The trial court had dropped all charges against the 36 accused, including some bookies, holding that the Special Cell of Delhi Police had been unable to establish any "nexus" or link between them and crime syndicate allegedly run by fugitive underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and his close aide Chhota Shakeel, who, along with one Sandeep, were declared proclaimed offenders in the case.
Three other accused -- Javed Chutani, Salman and Ehtesham -- are Pakistani nationals and the police could not lay their hands on them.
Assailing the verdict, the appeal has contended that the trial court order was unsustainable.
The Delhi Police has argued that the logic and conclusions put forth for discharging the accused was not correct.
Besides the three cricketers who were part of the IPL
team Rajasthan Royals and banned for life for their alleged involvement in crime, several bookies were among 36 named in the 6,000-page charge sheet.
In the charge sheet, the Delhi police had claimed to have unearthed sufficient evidence to prosecute them for the offence punishable under section 120B (conspiracy) read with 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating) of IPC, besides those relating to MCOCA.
The trial court had disagreed with the police on invoking MCOCA against the accused and said, "the best case could have been under Public Gambling Act, but that also is not prima facie established from the evidence placed on record by prosecution."
"The offence of cheating is also not made out prima facie, even if the entire evidence of prosecution is admitted without formal proof," the trial court had added.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 18 2015 | 3:02 PM IST

Next Story