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 it 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.

190. Instead of further explaining the analysis of CBI against Ajay Jadeja in my language, it would be in the fitness of things to reproduce below the analysis and the exact words of CBI as at Pages 114-120.

"At the insistence of M.K. Gupta, Ajay Sharma introduced Ajay Jadeja to M.K. Gupta in 1996. M.K. Gupta has stated that Ajay Jadeja came to this house along with Ajay Sharma and a girl and offered to "do" matches for him. However, no deal could be struck as Ajay Jadeja was only offering his services along with those of Nayan Mongia. M.K. Gupta has further stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Jadeja during this meeting. Ajay Sharma has corroborated the statement of M.K. Gupta and has further stated that of the Rs. 50,000/- paid by M.K. Gupta, Jadeja kept Rs. 32,000/- himself to purchase a cell phone and gave the remaining Rs. 18,000/- to him. On the other hand, Ajay Jadeja has stated that he does not remember meeting M.K. Gupta, since he had met so many people in his life. He has also denied having received Rs. 50,000/- from M.K. Gupta. Anil Steel, a bookie from Bombay has also stated that he once saw Ajay Jadeja in the hotel room of M.K. Gupta in Calcutta during the inaugural ceremony of the World Cup Cricket, 1996, which corroborates the links between Jadeja and M.K.

'During the enquiry, a printout of the cell phone number 98100 34882 of Ajay Jadeja for the period from 15.9.99 to 30.4.2000 was taken and studied. A scrutiny of the print-out has disclosed that Ajay Jadeja had made and received telephone calls in varying numbers from and to Rajesh Kalra, a punter, Rattan Mehta, a big time punter, Uttam Chand, a bookie/punter, Ajay Gupta, a punter and Krishan Kumar (implicated in the Hansie Cronje case). When questioned about these contacts, Ajay Jadeja stated that he knew Kalra as they visited the same Gym at Hotel Park Royal. Jadeja, however, denied that he ever discussed cricket with Rajesh Kalra or passed on any information about cricket matches to him.

'Ajay Jadeja accepts that he knows Krishan Kumar, but he did not have any knowledge that he was a punter. He admits that he is very close to Rattan Mehta but denies that he know Rattan Mehta was a big-time punter. Ajay Jadeja has specifically denied that he fixed matches for Rattan Mehta. Rattan Mehta in his examination supported the statement of Ajay Jadeja about being close to him and admitted taking Ajay Jadeja's 'judgement' on certain matches. It is, however, difficult to accept Jadeja's statement that he did not know that Rattan Mehta was a big time punter, given his accepted closeness to Rattan Mehta. Jadeja's statement is further suspect in the light of the statement of Pawan Puri, a punter of Delhi, who has stated that he had 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-A' and 'India-B', Challenger Trophy in February, 2000. (Ajay Jadeja was the Captain of India-B Team which lost both its matches.)

'Md. Azharuddin, during his examination, stated that in the Titan Cup Series in 1996, he had 'made' matches for M.K. Gupta and that Ajay Jadeja and Nayan Mongia were also stated that he had absolutely no doubt about the involvement of Ajay Jadeja with Azharuddin, and that in 1996, during a one-day match, Ajay Jadeja had also told him not to talk about "such things" to him as he was no longer into it. Dr. Ali Irani has further stated that he suspected that Ajay Jadeja made this statement to him, because by that time, Jadeja probably knew that Azharuddin had confided to him (Dr. Ali Irani) about match-fixing.

'Another major bookie/punter Uttam Chand, during his examination, has stated that he used to get "information" regarding various aspects of the match from Jadeja in matches in which India was playing. On the basis of information provided by Jadeja, he used to further place bets. Uttam Chand has also disclosed that he paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh initially at the time when he was introduced to Ajay Jadeja at a function in Hotel Chola Sheraton in Chennai, and later he paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs through 'Hawala' transfer when Ajay Jadeja was in Mumbai during a match. Ajay Jadeja has denied that he received any money from Uttam Chand. He has also stated that initially he only thought that Uttam Chand was his 'fan' and used to talk to him in order to avoid the nuisance of continuous calls from him. Jadeja has further stated that, after some time, he did get an inkling that Uttam Chand was a bookie. On being asked as to why he continued talking to Uttam Chand even after coming to know that he was a bookie, Jadeja could not provide a satisfactory answer.

'The assertion of Jadeja that often he would talk to Uttam Chand only to get rid of the nuisance of continuous telephone calls is difficult to accept, as Jadeja could very easily have firmly told Uttam Chand not to ring him up. He could also have declined to take any calls from Uttam Chand. On the contrary, he not only accepted calls from Uttam Chand and talked to him for minutes, but also, on occasions, returned the call of Uttam Chand. The timings of the call between Uttam Chand and Jadeja also suggest great familiarity between the two as there have been a number of calls around midnight. It seems peculiar as to why Jadeja should be talking to a bookie/punter around midnight, specially when he is scheduled to play a match the next morning. It is also of interest that Uttam Chand and Jadeja have spoken to each other, only a day prior to a match or on the day of the match. There have been no calls between them during a gap between two series or even during a gap in matches during a particular series. The connection between Uttam Chand and Jadeja is, therefore, not innocent. The connection between the two becomes further suspect as telephone calls in the print-out of Uttam Chand's Cell Phone No. 98400 37700 show that on occasions after talking to Jadeja he has spoken to well-known bookies such as Shobhan Mehta of Mumbai and Hans Kumar Jain of Delhi etc.

'A random sample of Cell phone calls between Jadeja and Uttam Chand are reproduced below as an illustration. Many of the calls made by Uttam Chand to Jadeja are of short duration and these are probably messages left in the voice mail:-
1. 10.10.1999 - 2 calls from Uttam Chand to Jadeja. They were made on the first day of 1st Test Match between India and New Zealand at Mohali.
2. 11.10.1999 - 8 calls from Uttam Chand to Jadeja. These were made on the 2nd day of the Mohali Test Match.
3. 12.10.1999 - 23 calls from Uttam Chand on the third day of the Test Match.
4. 13.10.1999 - 46 calls from Uttam Chand on the fourth day of the Test Match.
5. 14.10.1999 - 1 call from Uttam Chand on the last day of Mohali Test Match.
6. 28.10.1999 - 24 calls from Uttam Chand. This was one day prior to the Third Test Match between India - New Zealand at Ahmedabad.
7. 29.10.1999 - 13 calls from Uttam Chand. This was the first day of the 3rd Test Match.
8. 30.10.1999 - 62 calls from Uttam Chand on the 2nd day of the Test Match.
9. 31.10.1999 - 30 calls from Uttam Chand. This was the third day of the Test Match.
10. 01.11.1999 - 50 calls from Uttam Chand on the 4th day of the Test Match.
11. 02.11.1999 - 14 calls from Uttam Chand on the last day of the Test Match.
12. 13.11.1999 - 48 calls from Uttam Chand to Jadeja and 1 call from Jadeja to Uttam Chand. This was one day prior to the India-New Zealand one-dayer at Guwahati.
13. 14.11.1999 - 5 calls from Uttam Chand on the day of Guwahati one-dayer.
14. 16.11.1999 - 55 calls from Uttam Chand to Jadeja and 1 from Jadeja to Uttam Chand one day prior to the 5th one dayer between India and New Zealand at Delhi.
15. 11.3.2000 - Uttam Chand has made 28 calls. This was one day prior to the one-dayer between India-South Africa at Jamshedpur.
16. 12.3.2000 - Uttam Chand has made 3 calls on the day of the Jamshedpur one-dayer.

'The evidence against Ajay Jadeja clearly established that he has been close to a number of bookies/punters and has provided them "information" about cricket matches on payment of money. However, it has to be surmised that no bookie/punter will pay money for 'information', which is very easily available on television and the word is used as a subterfuge for underperforming and match-fixing.

'Ajay Jadeja was extremely intransigent during his examination, and, even when confronted with evidence issued bland denials".

191. Having set out the analysis made by the CBI, I have to now deal with the defence of Ajay Jadeja taken in the compilation given by him to me. At this stage, I have to compliment Ajay Jadeja -- nay his legal advisor - on the systematic manner his defence has been set out. It is neither possible for me nor is it called for that to reproduce in my report the entire 20 pages of his narrative explanation. Suffice to say, the explanation deals with all the aspects dealt with in the CBI report. Broadly stated, Ajay Jadeja vehemently contests the probative value of such facts as interpreted by the CBI. In other words, his present pleas are in the nature of the illustrative examples I have set out in para 15 of this report.

192. Towards the end of his explanation, he has made the following submissions (Pages 19-20 of his compilation).

Other Issues

I have in this submission, attempted to clear my name and establish my innocence on the basis of detailed refutations and explanations in relation to each of the allegations and other references made against me in the report. At the same time the Hon'ble Commissioner will have noted, as I have, that there are certain potentially serious infirmities with the Report and the manner in which it has been used. I make no effort to hide behind legal niceties as I feel I have justified my position on the basis of the facts alone, but I would seek your permission to make a few brief points here.

a) It is submitted that the materials and statements collected during the course of an investigation, much less an enquiry, can not be equated with and be treated as legally admissible evidence as they are statements made to a police officer. Yet they are being treated as evidence and persons named in the report were and continue to be condemned on this basis without being given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before the findings are made. Consequently, the Report and the process by which it was finalised makes it wrong, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

b) The analysis and conclusions are self-serving statements arrived at on the basis of pre-conceived notions and without any credible evidence. Many statements made are vague and lacking even in basic material particulars.

c) I would like to submit that with callous disregard, my reputation, built over a long period of time by hard work and sincere effort, has been washed away by the calculated leakage of the Report of the CBI and unfair comments and trail by press. This has caused immense and irreparable harm and injury."

193. The attempt by Ajay Jadeja has been establish, what he has stated at the outset itself at Page 1 of his compilation.

• At no time in my career have I been involved with match fixing as defined in the CBI Report.
• At no time have I ever accepted money or any other form of consideration for under performing or providing information in a cricket match, whether at domestic, international or any other level.
• At all times when I have had the privilege of representing my country, state or Board, I have played the game to the very best of my ability and skill."

194. I have already analysed at appropriate places my assessment of the important allegations in respect of Ajay Jadeja. In particular, I may state that in this inquiry against him and others it is not theory of benefit of doubt is to be applied but the theory of preponderance of probabilities. As this is not a Court trail, evidence recorded by CBI officers is admissible. I therefore hold, on the basis of the evidence available and after considering the pleas taken by Ajay Jadeja before the CBI and myself, that he is guilty of gross misconduct.

195. Before I proceed to set out my final opinion, I cannot but express my subjective view about Ajay Jadeja as a player. Shorn of his misconduct, he is a bubbling youngster, full of energy and it is a delight to watch on and off the field. He has had a great future as a cricket player at international level and this has been affected by his unwisely getting too much mixed up with bookies/punters leading to the nemesis where he finds himself now. As an Indian, it is with sadness that I have to record the following, which I am however compelled to do as Commissioner, BCCI.

196. My final opinion regarding the role of Ajay Jadeja in this is as under:-
i) He had very close undesirable contacts and objectionable nexus with various bookies/punters.
ii) He is guilty of unbecoming conduct and misconduct as a national level player on account of his maintaining such frequent contacts as set out above with bookie/punters.

197. Before parting with the case of Ajay Jadeja, I must record that I do not agree with the observations of CBI that "Ajay Jadeja was extremely intransigent during the examination, and, even when confronted with evidence, issued bland denials". I am afraid that this observation by the CBI is unwarranted as CBI cannot expect every suspected person to confess before them and help them to solve their case with ease. A large majority of the accused persons in such cases always deny their involvement in their case, even when strong evidence is available against them.

Continue......