Accused of spot-fixing during IPL 2013, tainted cricketers S Sreesanth, Ankeet Chavan and Ajit Chandila's monetary grants have been withheld by the BCCI, which has applied a different yardstick for another tainted former India cricketer Jacob Martin.
Martin was arrested in Delhi on April 27, 2011 on charges of human trafficking after he had a formed a bogus cricket team and send one Nimesh Kumar to the United Kingdom by obtaining visa through fraudulent means.
He was later released on bail but the case is still pending against Martin.
According to BCCI's wbesite where the payment or one-time grant of former cricketers have been recorded, Martin's name in the beneficiary list is at No 118. The former Baroda right-hander, who played 10 ODIs, has been paid Rs 30 lakh by the BCCI.
Martin's payment again came into prominence as at the start of this month, a Delhi Court dismissed his plea challenging framing of charges against him in that particular case.
On December 1, 2015, the additional Sessions Judge Vinod Kumar dismissed a revision petition filed by Martin against a magisterial court's order framing charges for alleged offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy against him.
"Even if the documentary evidence has been weeded out as already discussed, the statements of aforesaid witnesses (of police) are enough to frame charge against the revisionist (Martin). What is the worth of these statements, can only be seen during the trial.
"However, I am of the opinion that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly framed the charge against the revisionist and I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the charge," the judge said while dismissing his plea.
In fact, Martin's payment was cleared by the last finance
committee and one of its member said that they had no clue about Martin's arrest.
"Look, we were finance committee members. It is BCCI's duty to do all the checks & balances. He had played 138 first-class matches and qualified for the payment. As far as police case is concerned, BCCI officials in charge should have informed us. His payment was passed as no one even raised a question," a member of the erstwhile finance committee told
