Response to allegations made against Ajay Jadeja in the CBI Report on match-fixing and related malpractices in cricket.

I clearly accepted in my statement to the CBI that I know Rattan Mehta and that I have met him many times.

My position on this has not changed. I also continue to state, as I did in my statement to the CBI, tht I have neither accepted money from nor fixed matches for Rattan Mehta. This is corroborated by Ratan Mehta's statement of the CBI report, and I quote:

"He (Rattan Mehta) stated that he was on very friendly terms with Ajay Jadeja for the past many years. Ajay Jadeja has visited his restaurant, Mini Mahal, on many occasions.

"Rattan Mehta claims that he has not fixed matches through Jadeja, but has however taken his "judgement" on matches sometimes. He also denies paying any money to Jadeja. According to Rattan, Jadeja had not given him any information during the Challenger Trophy between India, India A and India B."

As you can see, Rattan Mehta has corroborated my statement and has clearly said that he has not paid me any money and that he has not fixed any matches through me.

I do not know what Rattan Mehta means by the term judgement, however, I deny that I have even made or provided such "judgements" about any cricket matches for Rattan Mehta. By this I mean any information in relation to cricket matches, which would be of any use to any bookies or punters.

Despite the corroboration of my statement by Rattan Mehta, the CBI in their wisdom choose to state on page 116 of the Report as follows: "It is however difficult to accept Jadeja's statement that he did not know that Rattan was a big time punter, given his accepted closeness to Rattan Mehta."

I fail to understand how mere closeness to a person can be taken as evidence that one should know everything about that person's life. Since great emphasis has been placed on the evidence of telephone records, let me state that over 90 per cent of Rattan Mehta's calls to me or mine to him have not been during any cricket matches and have instead been while I was in Delhi, when I have not been playing any such matches. If my conversations with Rattan Mehta are supposed to have related to any match fixing, presumably these should have been in the days prior to or during such matches. So it is clear that the evidence of telephone calls and closeness in themselves cannot be taken as conclusive of anything.

The Report then goes on to use statements of one Pawan Puri as evidence that I fixed matches for Rattan Mehta. The report states on page 116 that "Jadeja's statement is further suspect in the light of the statement of Pawan Puri, a punter of Delhi who has stated that he travelled with Ajay Jadeja on a flight from Mumbai to Delhi during which they discussed cricket matches and Jadeja had at that time told him that he had "done" matches for Rattan Mehta during the India, India A and India B Challenger Trophy in February 2000. (Ajay Jadeja was the captain of the India B Team which lost both matches)."

Let me point out the following about the statements attributed to Pawan Puri and the manner in which they have analysed by the CBI.

In relation to this statement of Pawan Puri the CBI report states on Page 47: "One another occasion, he (Pawan Puri) had met Jadeja when he was flying from Bombay to Delhi. Around that time a domestic series between India, India A and India B teams had just ended. Ajay Jadeja was captain of the India B team and he heard in bookie circles that Ajay Jadeja had agreed to lose matches for India B at the behest of Rattan Mehta who made around 20 lakhs through betting for the series."

As you can see, Pawan Puri stated that he had heard in bookie circles that I had greed to lose matches at the behest of Rattan Mehta. However, in the analysis of this statement of Pawan Puri on page 116, the Report says that Pawan Puri said that he met me on a flight between Bombay and Delhi, during which time I told him that I "did" matches for Rattan Mehta during the Challenger Trophy. This contradicts Pawan Puri's statement mentioned above and is another example of how statements made by witnesses before the CBI have been completely twisted and distorted to create false evidence against me. It is my contention that both the above statements, that is, that supposedly made by Pawan Puri and that which appears in page 116 of the CBI report are false.

Back      More

The complete coverage

Mail Cricket Editor