)
A Delhi court, which discharged cricketers S Sreesanth, Ajit Chandila and Ankeet Chavan in the sensational 2013 IPL-6 spot-fixing case, has held there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that they had any nexus with the organised crime syndicate.
Additional Sessions Judge Neena Krishna Bansal in her 175-page order on charge said "no prima facie case in any offence including provisions of MCOCA is made out against the accused persons and they are entitled to be discharged."
In a slap to Delhi Police, the court had yesterday discharged all 36 accused, including the three cricketers, in the sensational spot-fixing case saying it had failed to gather "all necessary ingredients to establish a prima facie case" under stringent MCOCA.
ALSO READ: Sreesanth, 35 other accused discharged
The three cricketers, were banned for life from the game by BCCI immediately after the police action in the alleged scam two years ago.
Detailing the role of Sreesanth and his two friends P Jiju Janardhanan and Abhishek Shukla, the judge noted there was not a single criminal case, prior to the present one, against them, which is a mandatory provision for invoking Maharashra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).
"In the absence of this and of nexus with the crime syndicate, it cannot be said that he (Sreesanth) was indulging in continuing unlawful activity," the court said.
It said the entire evidence on record suggests that Sreesanth was approached by Janardhan to play a fixed over at the behest of alleged bookie Chandresh Patel, but this did not happen as he had refused to play the fixed over.
"No evidence whatsoever is placed on record to show that they (Sreesanth, Janardhan, Shukla) were in communication with or associated with organised crime syndicate and were the abettors of the crimes allegedly being committed by the syndicate," the court said.
The court, while relying on the conversations of Janardhanan and Chandresh Patel, said "Sreesanth was not willing to fix the over since he had come to play the game after a long time and was not willing to take a risk."
Detailing the role of Ajit Chandila, the court said that though he had agreed to under-perform, he did not do so. "He is not shown to have cheated anybody since he did not under perform after taking money," it said.
