Justice Ashutosh Kumar expressed displeasure that Delhi police was seeking more time to file their response to the applications of some of the parties for release of their passports, seized during investigation in the matter.
The court asked the counsel for the Delhi Police why they did not file their reply to the applications.
While giving the police time till January 22 next year, when the next hearing will be held, the judge orally observed, "It appears that you (police) do not have a good case to put before this court."
The trial court had in July 2015 given a clean chit to the cricketers and the alleged bookies in the case after which the police had moved the high court on September 2, 2015 against the order.
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.
Assailing the verdict, the appeal has contended that the trial court order was unsustainable.
The Delhi Police has submitted that the logic and conclusions put forth for discharging the accused were not correct.
It had contended that the trial court had erred completely in interpreting the provisions of MCOCA dealing with crime syndicates and the manner in which the issue of framing of charges had been discussed needed to be looked at again.
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 the 36 named in the 6,000-page charge sheet.
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.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
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
