REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER, BCCI
175. When I started questioning Ajay Jadeja regarding Uttam Chand, his statements were to me not clear and were often confusing. In order to make it easier for him and myself and for the reader to comprehend Ajay Jadeja's pleas regarding Uttam Chand, I recorded this statement of Ajay Jadeja in question and answer form which is reproduced below:-
"8). In so far as Uttam Chand is concerned, I shall now tell you with reference to each sentence of my statement recorded by the CBI as to what I had told the CBI.
a) On being asked I state that I do not know any person named Uttam Chand of Chennai.
This is correct.
b) On being confronted with my telephone printouts as well as Uttam Chand's telephone printout which discloses very frequent telephonic contact between us just before International cricket matches, I state that probably I know him and I recognise the cell phone number, but I know this person as Gupta.
The CBI did show me only one page of print out of Uttam Chand telephone and it was in respect to this that I gave the aforesaid statement. I reiterate that I knew that person not as Uttam Chand, but as Gupta.
c) On being asked how it is possible for a person not knowing me so well to contact me so frequently over telephone, I state that this person has been ringing me up for the past one or two years and claiming to be a fan and I have been trying to avoid telephonic contacts with him later on.
This is generally correct.
d) On being asked as to how Uttam Chand got my cell phone number, I state I do not know how he got my cell phone number.
This is correct.
e) On being asked how if I was avoiding telephonic contacts with him, I have also rang him upon many occasions, I state that he used to some time say that if you do not talk to me, you will fall into badluck and hence I sued to ring him back and just talk to him because of superstition.
This is generally correct. In addition to this, I would like to say that apart from superstition, on some occasion I might have called him back even when I was not playing any match. On some occasions, when I was not well, Gupta of Chennai might have called to enquire about my health. I might have returned the call later.
f) On being asked whether I am aware that Uttam Chand is a well-known bookie of Chennai, I state that some time, a few months ago I got an inkling to this effect because of the conversation he used to have with me.
This is generally correct because I got such inkling when the frequency of his calls became too many and also because of the nature of the questions which he used to ask.
g)On being asked why I continued my telephonic contact with him, even after my suspicion that he was a bookie, I state that I cannot explain this aspect.
What I told CBI was I was not aware that he was a bookie and had only an inkling. It was due to this that our telephonic contacts continued. The CBI officers then said that this cannot happen and therefore it is not a proper explanation. I then said that I have no further explanation.
h) On being asked if I received any money from Uttam Chand for the information I provided, I state that I do not remember having received any money.
What I told the CBI was I had never met this person and had not received any money from him.
i) On being asked how in the face of clear evidence linking me to Uttam Chand I do not admit any wrong doing, I state that I do not want to discuss these things and you can draw your own conclusions.
I will explain what actually took place during my examination by CBI. Towards the end of my questioning about Uttam Chand, I found that the CBI officer was not willing to accept the explanations which I had offered to them as now stated by me before you and it was in that context that I told them to the effect that if you do not believe what I have told you, you can draw your own conclusion."
176. Even a plain reading of the statement made by Ajay Jadeja before me would convince anyone that Ajay Jadeja was not at all speaking the truth before me. Firstly, he makes a distinction that he knew the said person only as Gupta and not as Uttam Chand. As their contacts have been frequent, this is not believable. However, he does admit that the said person had been ringing him up frequently for the past one or two years. He stated however that he had been trying to avoid telephonic contacts with him 'later on'. The carefully used term 'later on' obviously refers to the period after the match fixing allegation became public knowledge on 8th April, 2000. He claims that he did not know as to how Uttam Chand got his cell phone number. Regarding the calls made by Ajay Jadeja to Uttam Chand, the plea taken by him before CBI was 'superstition'.
Before me, he however, added that Gupta of Chennai might have called him to enquire about his health and he might have returned the calls later. It is inconceivable that a healthy, strong and athletic young man like Ajay Jadeja would have ailments, which required frequent enquiries from Uttam Chand or any other person. Obviously, he has taken this additional plea under legal advice as taking the plea of superstition before me also might not be good enough and therefore some more trumped up ground should also be added. While admitting that he had a inkling that Gupta of Chennai could be a bookie, he could not explain why the contacts were was frequent. He told the CBI, "I cannot explain this aspect". Before me, however, he stated that when he told the CBI that he had only an 'inkling' to that effect and therefore, the telephonic conversation continued, the CBI officers then said that this cannot happen and therefore it was not a proper explanation. Ajay Jadeja then told the CBI that he had no further explanation which was recorded by the CBI as, "I cannot explain this aspect". A very ingeneous plea indeed; but not believable.
177. So far as receiving money from Uttam Chand for the information provided is concerned, Ajay Jadeja had told the CBI that he did not remember having received any money. Before me, however, he stated "What I told the CBI was, I had never met this person and had not received any money from him". His demeanour before me clearly indicated that he was not speaking the truth.
178. Regarding the last part of his statement relating to Uttam Chand, when he told the CBI that he did not want to discuss these things and CBI could draw their own conclusions, he stated before me that he found that the CBI officer was not willing to accept the explanations which he had offered to them and it was in this context that he told them to the effect that if CBI did not believe what he had told them, they could draw their own conclusion!
179. Regarding Ajay Jadeja's friendship with a number of bookies/punters like Rajesh Kalra, Kishan Kumar, Rattan Mehta and Uttam Chand, he told the CBI, "I do not want to discuss these things". Before me, Ajay Jadeja stated that he did not tell the CBI as above. He stated before me that in both the statements dated 16th July, 2000 and 1st September, 2000 recorded by the CBI, he had referred to all the said four persons and explained his relationship with them. Ajay Jadeja stated that therefore, it was not correct for CBI to have recorded in his statement "I do not want to disclose these things".
180. While I am inclined to agree with Ajay Jadeja's on this aspect in paragraph 179 above, it appeared that while recording the statement of Ajay Jadeja, CBI wanted to probe further regarding his relationship with those persons but Ajay Jadeja told the CBI that as he had already stated what he had to state to about them, there was nothing further for him to state. It appears that it is this statement of Ajay Jadeja which CBI has briefly stated as, "I do not want to discuss these things".
181. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Ajay Jadeja stated that he had made certain mistakes in his cricket career and was paying a price for it. In the statement recorded by me, Ajay Jadeja stated, "I did say something to this effect to CBI that I had either known or had contacts with the aforesaid persons without realising they were punters and now that is turns out that they are punters and if I had committed any mistakes in this regard, I was paying for them".
182. I am convinced that under expert legal advice, Ajay Jadeja has cleverly tried to wriggle out of the impossible situation where his own cell phone records and Uttam Chand's cell phone records have landed him in serious trouble. To drive home the fallacy in the said plea of Ajay Jadeja, I may be pardoned by the reader for quoting the following anecdote.
183. In the middle of the night, a householder heard some noise in his farm nearby and went out to investigate. He then saw a person at the top of a coconut tree in his farm which had an abundance of coconuts. When that person saw the householder, he started climbing down barehanded. When he started to do so, the householder asked that person as to why he was at the top of the coconut tree. That person told the householder he had gone up the tree to cut grass. The householder then asked that person, "How can you get grass on top of a coconut tree?". That person smartly replied, "Yes. I find that there is no grass here and that is why I am climbing down". I am afraid that Ajay Jadeja's convoluted explanations have to be considered in the same vein as that of the coconut thief who was caught by the householder.
184. Towards the end of the further statement, Ajay Jadeja stated before CBI that he did not want to unburden himself before the CBI and discuss anything since his disclosures can lead to some physical threat to himself and hence he will live with this burden. When CBI asked him about the person who may threaten him, Ajay Jadeja stated that he did not want to discuss anything about the same.
185. Regarding this, Ajay Jadeja stated before me, that he would not like to make accusations against others without full knowledge or evidence as it can lead to troubles and misunderstandings. He added "I do not want to say that I was afraid of physical threat". As this version in the statement made before me by Ajay Jadeja is not of much consequence, it is not necessary to elaborate further in this regard.
186. CBI has analysed the evidence in respect of Ajay Jadeja at Pages 114-120. Based on Ajay Jadeja's statement before the CBI as well as statements of bookies/punters, CBI has come to the conclusion that he had close relations with a number of bookies/punters including Rajesh Kalra, Rattan Mehta, Uttam Chand, Kishan Kumar, who was implicated in the Hansie Cronje case and Ajay Gupta. According to the CBI, Ajay Gupta has also given 'judgement' and 'information' regarding cricket matches to Uttam Chand and Rattan Mehta. Ajay Jadeja also met M.K. Gupta in 1996 and offered to "do" matches for him. As Ajay Jadeja could not promise the help of other players except one, the deal did not materialise. Both M.K. Gupta and Uttam Chand stated before the CBI that they paid money to Ajay Jadeja.
187. Various comments have recently been made about the veracity of the statements of bookies/punters at this stage, I have to state that in respect of the case relating to gambling den, most of the witnesses would be gamblers and other undesirable persons. Same will be the case in respect of any place or activity of ill repute. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the evidence of such persons should never be believed. It is no doubt necessary to exercise caution while assessing the statements of such persons and therefore, the investigating agency has to try to obtain all available corroborative evidence in respect of such statement. Even in court cases, the confessions of accused persons, including an accused person who has turned approver, are relied upon by courts, if such statements have material corroboration from other sources. In this enquiry, such material corroboration is available in respect of Ajay Jadeja and other players whom I shall hold guilty in my enquiry. In particular, the frequent and frantic telephonic contacts between the said players and bookies/punters constitute sufficient material corroboration.
188. At this stage, I have to necessarily digress from the evidence in respect of Ajay Jadeja and others and apprise the reader of the rules of evidence that are generally applicable in our country. When a person is prosecuted for a criminal offence in the court, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and to the complete satisfaction of the judge. In other words, if the judge finally comes to the conclusion that there was a chance that the accused person might not be guilty, however weak the reason for this might be, he has to necessarily acquainted. However, in civil cases as well as departmental enquiries, which are in the nature of the present enquiry being conducted by me, the proof that is required is only preponderance of probabilities, namely considering the evidence against and in favour of a proposition, the proposition is most likely to be true. This is the theory of evidence that would be applicable in the enquiry which I am conducting, which is in the nature of an in-house departmental enquiry on behalf of BCCI. I may state that in this matter BCCI is the Disciplinary Authority akin to such authority in Government/PSU/any other Organisation and I am the Inquiry Officer, designated as Commissioner by BCCI.
189. Reverting back to the analysis of evidence in respect of Ajay Jadeja, I may state that his very frequent and now infamous contacts with bookies/punters coupled with what the bookies/punters admitted before CBI clearly establishes that he had very close contacts with such bookies/punters. Such contacts with one such person could be taken to mean, if one is inclined to lean in favour of Ajay Jadeja, that it could be a coincidence. However, his frequent contacts with quite some bookies/punters, who make hundreds of crores rupees in betting and accepting bets on cricket matches, which practice unfortunately has come to haunt the world in general and our sub-continent in particular was thoroughly undesirable, to say the least and borders on conspiracy, if one takes a serious view.
Back Next
Mail Cricket Editor
