IPL spot-fixing case: Delhi Police move High Court, file appeal against trial court order

Sreesanth and his former Rajasthan Royals teammates Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan had been discharged in the 2013 IPL spot-fixing case, which had held that no prima facie case under MCOCA was made out against them.

[related-post]

After the scandal broke in 2013, the BCCI had imposed lifetime bans on the three players. Recently, a Supreme Court appointed panel had also banned the IPL teams Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals from the league for two years over the allegations of betting by team owners and officials.

The trial court had, however, discharged all accused of charges of organised betting, cheating and participation in a crime syndicate. “The offence in relation to which MCOCA is sought to be invoked, pertains to betting and match-fixing, which. does not fit in any penal statute,” the court said. “All the necessary ingredients to establish a prima facie case under the provisions of MCOCA is not made out,” it said.

The special cell had chargesheeted 42 persons, including underworld ‘dons’ Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Shakeel in the ‘scam’ involving fixing of certain passages of play during matches in the sixth edition of the IPL. The police had included charges under MCOCA, cheating, and illegal betting and match-fixing against the accused.

‘No evidence’

The trial court had, however, held that there was “no evidence” to indicate that there was a “core crime syndicate” which had “been indulging in the organised offence of betting and match-fixing and also dealing with money so generated through hawala.”

The court had observed that the “best case” could have been made under the Public Gambling Act, but that too was “not prima facie established” from the evidence placed on record by the special cell.

The special cell filed its appeal on Wednesday evening before the Delhi High Court, challenging the trail court order on grounds that it had “failed” to properly appreciate the evidence before it. The cell in its appeal has also said that the trial court should not have discharged all accused at the stage of framing of charges and should have considered all evidence after a proper trial.