IPL Spot Fixing Case, Delhi Sessions Court Discharge Order

INTHECOURTOFMS.
NEENABANSALKRISHNA,ASJ01,NEWDELHI
DISTRICT,PATIALAHOUSECOURTS,
NEWDELHI
SCNo.115/13
FIRNo.20/13
PS:SpecialCell
U/s3/4MCOCA,419,420,120BIPC
Inre:
STATE
Vs.
1.AshwaniAggarwal@TinkuMandi
S/oSh.JaiNarainAggarwal
R/oH.No.B12,TagoreRoad,
AdarshNagar,Delhi
2.AjayGoyal
S/oSh.SureshGoyal
R/oH.No.45D,JhangSociety,
PlotNo.40,Sector13,Rohini
Delhi
3.AmitGupta
S/oLateSatnarainGupta
State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.
1 of 175
R/oH.No.B12,TagoreRoad
AdarshNagar,Delhi
4.DipitGarg@Love
S/oSh.MahenderGarg
R/oH.No.371,RPSDDAFlats
M.S.Park,Shahdara,Delhi
5.RamakantAgarwal
S/oSh.KamalKishoreAgarwal
R/oMohallaCivilLines
PSCityGondia,Distt.Gondia
Maharashtra
6.DeepakKumar@Deepu
S/oSh.DhaniRam
R/oH.No.344,streetNo.3,TripuriTown,Patiala,Punjab.
7.RakeshOberoi@Rocky
S/olateMohinderPalOberoi
2 of 175
R/oH.No.G18/4,Sector15
Rohini,Delhi
8.AjitChandila
S/olateGirirajChandila
R/oVillageBaroli,
PSSector8,Faridabad,Haryana
9.AmitKumarSingh
S/oSh.RamGovindSingh
R/oH.No.38,HariomVilla
NearHomeopathyCollege
Bopal,Ahmedabad,Gujarat
10.ChandreshPatel@Chand
S/oShivLalPatel
R/oFlatNo.A401,SandeepSarovar
4Bungalow,AndheriWestMumbai
PermanentResident:
H.No.C345,VaishaliNagar
Jaipur,Rajasthan
3 of 175
11.MananUBhatt
S/oSh.UpendraKumarBhatt
R/oH.No.19/136,AzadApartment2
HimmatLalParkRoad,Ambavadi
Ahmedabad
12.S.Sreesanth
S/oSh.V.S.Nair
R/oH.No.18,OrionBuilding
SkylineApartments,Edappally
Cochin24
13.PokenJijuJanardhanan@Jiju
S/oSh.P.Janardhanan
R/oValapandal,PSKuthuparamba
DistrictKannur,Kerala
14.AnkeetAnilChavan
S/oSh.AnilM.Chavan
4 of 175
R/oRoomno.2,UltraCooperative
HousingSocietyChawl,
DilipGupteRoad,Mahim
Mumbai16
15.KiranDhole@Munna
S/oSh.PundlikraoDhole
R/oPlotNo.31,Rajnagar,
Suranalayout,KatolRoad,
Nagpur,Maharashtra
16.ManishMathukaraoGuddewar
S/oSh.MadhukarBalwantRaoGuddewar
R/oHousenearoldNagarParishadBuilding,
BehindDurgaMataMandir,PSandDistrict
Gadchiroli,Maharashtra
17.SunilPashamlalBhatia
S/oSh.PashamLalBhatia
R/oFlatno.202,SaiLalitaApartment,
NewColony,Nagpur
5 of 175
Maharashtra
18.BaburaoYadav
S/oLateAlguYadav
R/oPlotNo.799,BehindJaswant
Talkies,BudhNagar,Indora,
PSPanchpawli,Distt.Nagpur,
Maharashtra
19.MohammedYahiya@Yusuf
S/oSh.MohammedAli
R/oFlatno.1201,WingG,GreenPark
building,Oshiwara,AndheriWest,
Mumbai53
20.BabuSunilChanderSaxena
S/oSh.BabuSureshChanderSaxena
R/oPlotno.34812,Flatno.203,
BBlock,NorthWing,Paragon
VenkatadriApartment,
Barkatpura,Hyderabad
6 of 175
21.SyedDurreyAhmed@Sohaib
S/oLateSyedAbdulHafiz
R/oH.No.187198/D/A/10,SultanShahi,Hyderabad,AP.
22.BhupenderNagar
S/oRajenderSinghNagar
R/oH.No.YC526,NTPCSociety
OMEGA1,NearPariChowk
GreaterNoida
23.VikasChaudhary@Vicky
S/oSh.PradeepChaudhary
R/oH.No.K22,NaveenShahdara
Delhi
24.NitinJain@Susu
S/oSh.RajeevJain
R/oH.No.4/2981,ShalimarPark
NewDelhi
7 of 175
25.VinodSharma@Monu
S/oSh.SitaramSharma
R/oH.No.B62,GaliNo.5,
KantiNagarExtension,
KrishnaNagar
Delhi
26.AbhishekShukla
S/oSh.RoopKishoreShukla
R/oFlatno.3,VabhibariCooperative
HousingSocietyno.4,Bunglow,Near
DattaMarg,ChurchLane,
Andheri(West),Mumbai.
Permanentresident:
14,D.N.SinghRoad,
NearDenaBank,BhagalpurCity
Distt.Bhagalpur,Bihar
27.RameshVyas
S/oSh.BajrangLalVyas
8 of 175
R/oFlatno.35,OmDariyaMahal
80,NapeanSeaRoad,Mumbai
28.FirozFaridAnsari
S/oFaridAnsari
R/o105,ShankarBuildingRoomNo.3335,
JaiRajBahaiLane,ShuklajiStreet,
Nagpada,Mumbai.
29.JitenderKumarJain@JeetuTharad
S/0LateGheverChandJain
R/oH.No.1240,ShamalaniPole,
Raipur,Ahmedabad,Gujarat.
30.ChandraPrakashJain@
ChandreshJain@Jupiter
S/oUttamJain,
R/o2221,Maniharankrasta,
MissonpoleBazar,Jaipur,Rajasthan.
9 of 175
31.HarvinderSinghBatra,
S/oLateShriGurbakshSinghBatra,
R/o38/C,MIGFlats,RajouriGarden,NewDelhi.
32.AmanSachdeva,
S/oSh.SomnathSachdeva,
R/o29/2,IndiraVikasColony,
nearNirankariColony,KingswayCamp,
NewDelhi.
33.Mohd.ShakilAmir
S/oMohd.Azam,
R/oPlotno.298,MLAColony,
Roadno.12,BanjaraHill,
HydrabadandVill.Bodhan,
DistrictNizamabad,A.P.
34.AmitKishorchandJisnani,
S/oSh.KishorchandJisnani,
R/o76,C/oBanktoRanapratapChowk,
10 of 175
MangalwariPeth,Town&PoliceStationUmrer,
DistrictNagpur,Maharashtra441203.
35.SanjayAggarwal@ChotuNagpur,
S/oGauriShankarAggarwal,
R/oFlatno.101,OmMansion158,
NewRamdas,PethbehindCentralPoint,
Nagpur,Maharashtra.
36.PraveenKumarjiThakkar@Pintoo
S/oGaneshBhai,
R/o29,SheeshBungalow,
ATTAPattanDistrict,Pattan,Gujarat..Accusedpersons
APPEARANCES
Present:
Sh.RajivMohan,Ld.SpecialPPforthe
State.
IOAddl.DCPManishiChandraalongwith
Insp.KailashBishtandSIRavinderTyagi.
Ms.ManishaBhandari,Sh.Omkar
Shrivastava,DivyadeepChaturvedi,Ld.
11 of 175
CounselforaccusedAshwani
AggarwalandaccusedRamakant
Aggarwal.
Sh.SushilBajajandSh.BhavookChauhan,
Ld.CounselforaccusedAjayGoyal,Amit
GuptaandDipitGarg.
Ld.Counsel,Sh.SanjeevandRamKamal
foraccusedDeepakKumarandRakesh
Oberoi
@Rocky.
Sh.RakeshKumar,Sh.AdityaNayyarand
Sh.PromodKumarSachdeva,Ld.Counsels
for
accusedAjit Chandila.
Sh.Sh.AmitabNarender.,Ld.Counselfor
accusedAmitKumarSingh.
Sh.R.P.Vyas,Ld.Counselforaccused
ChandreshPatel.
Sh.B.MishraandSh.R.KMishra,Ld.
CounselsforaccusedMananBhatt.
Ms.RebeccaJohn,SeniorAdvocatealong
with Sh.VishalGosain,Sh.KushdeepGaur
Sh.HarshBora,Ld.Counselsfor
and
accused S.
Sreesanth.
Sh.ParveenNarang,Sh.ShivamT.andSh.
AnishDhingra,Ld.Counselsforaccused
Poken
JijuJanardhanan.
12 of 175
Sh.KishoreGayakwardandSh.Santosh
Chavihaa,Ld.CounselsforaccusedAnkeet
Chavan.
Sh.J.P.Sharma,Ld.Counselforaccused
KiranDhole.
Sh.AlokSingh,Ld.Counselforaccused
ManishMathukarao.
Sh.VibhorVardhan,Ld.Counselsfor
accusedBaburaoYadav,MohammedYahiya
&
BabuSunilChanderSaxena.
Sh.AdityaNayyar,Ld.Counselforaccused
SyedDurreyAhmed.
Sh.NikilMehta,Ld.Counselforaccused
BhupenderNagar
Sh.NikilMehta,Ld.Counselforaccused
VikasChaudhary&VinodSharma.
Sh.SanjayGautam,Ld.Counselfor
accusedAbhishekShukla.
Sh.PuneetRelan,Ld.Counselforaccused
RameshVyas.
Sh.DixitandMeenuPandey,Ld.Counsels
foraccusedFirozFaridAnsari.
Sh.PuneetRelan,Ld.Counselforaccused
JitendraKumarJain.
Sh.R.K.Thakur,Ld.Counselforaccused
ChandraPrakashJain.
Sh.P.K.Wadhwa,Ld.Counselforaccused
HarvinderSinghBatra.
13 of 175
Sh.ManishArora,Ld.Counselforaccused
AmanSachdeva.
Sh.AdityaNayyar,Ld.Counselaccused
MohdShakilAmir.
Sh.SandeepTyagi,Ld.Counselforaccused
Amit KishorchandJisnani.
Sh.AtulPandyandNeerajKumar,Ld.
CounselsforaccusedSanjayAggarwal.
Ld.CounselSh.BhalenduMishra,Ld.
CounselforaccusedPraveenKumar.G.
Thakkar.
Sh.NikhilMehta,Ld.Counselforaccused
NitinJain.
ORDERONCHARGE:
A charge sheet u/s 419/420/120B IPC and section 3/4 of
MaharashtraControlofOrganizedCrimeAct(MCOCA) wasfiled
against 42 accused persons. Three accused namely, Dawood
Ibrahim,ChotaShakeelandSandeep@Sandihavebeendeclared
ProclaimedOffenderswhilethreeaccused JavedChutani, Salman
@Master and Ehteysham arethethreePakistaniNationalagainst
whomtheproceedingsarestillunderway.Outoftheremaining36
accused persons three accused namely, Amit Kishore, Aman,
Harvinder havebeenchargesheetedonlyfor Section420/468/471
IPC. Against the remaining 33 accused persons and also 6 not
14 of 175
arrestedaccused,thecharge sheethasbeenfiled u/s3and4

MCOCAandsection419/420IPCreadwithsection120BIPC.
Facts in brief, are that the Central Investigating Agency
working under Ministry of Home Affairs shared some secret

informationwhichincludedcertaininternationalcellphonenumbers
withtheSpecialCell.Thesecretinformationandthenumberswere
considered as suspected on account of being linked to anti
national/terrorist activities. Some of these numbers alongwith
associated/deducednumbersweretakenonlawfulinterceptionsince
theendofFebruary,2013.Thecontinuousmonitoringandfollowupof
theseinternationalnumbersledtodiscoveryoftipofconspiracywhich
was being carried out for spot/session fixing in the recently
commencedIPLtournament,2013.
Theprimarynumberreceivedaspartofsecretinformationwas
aPakistaninumber+923332064488whichwasfoundtobeintouch
withDubainumber+971561363786whichwasinturnfoundtobein
touchwiththemobilenumberwhichwaslaterascertainedtobethe
accusedAshwaniAggarwal@TinkuMandi.Severalothernumbers
of Tinku as mentioned in the charge sheet, were also taken on
15 of 175
interception.Fromtheseinterceptedcall,itwasrevealedthatAshwani
AggarwalwasthemainIndianconduitonbehalfofoverseasbased
underworldfororchestratingspot/sessionfixing.Hewasfoundtobe
intouchwith Dr.JavedChutani@Doctor who,inturnasperthe
confirmationreceivedfromCentralInvestigationAgency,wasclose
associate of Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Shaikh Shakeel @
Shahid Babu Mohiuddin Sheikh @ Chota Shakeel who was
operatinginIndiaafterDawoodIbrahimescapedfromIndiaafter1993
Mumbai Serial Blast. Atpresent,bothDawoodIbrahimandChota
Shakeel are learnt to be stationed in Pakistan and have been
operatingthroughtheirassociatesintheentiremiddleandSouthEast
Asiancountryandarecontinuingtheiractivitiesoforganizedcrime
throughtheirhenchmenandassociatesbasedinIndia.
The intercepted calls and technical surveillance of mobile
phones of Tinku revealed that he was in constanttouch with two

accusednamely,SunilBhatiaandKiranDhole,whowerefixersand
were in touch with certaincricketers.Inthetelephonicintercepted
callsbetweenJavedChutaniandTinku,nameofaccused Salman
alsoperkedupinregardtouseofnetbeingmoresafe.
16 of 175
Further investigations and mobile phone intercepts revealed
that accused Sunil Bhatia and Kiran Dhole were in touch with
cricketer AjitChandila playingforRajasthanRoyalsteamintheon
goingIPLVImatchesthroughoneManishGuddewarandoneBabu
RaoYadav,bothRanjilevelcricketers.Hewasalsofoundtobein
touchwithmanyotherfixers/bookiesandwasreceivinghandsome
amountinlieuofhimselfunderperformingormakingotherplayers
underperformasperthebidingofbookieswhichshouldbetermedas
spot/sessionfixing.
Furtherscrutinyledtothemobilenumberwhichwasfoundto
beof Manan, who inturnwasintouchwith Jiju@PokkenJiju

Janardhan,residentofKeralawhowasintouchwithS.Sreesanth,a
player of Rajasthan Royals team. One Jeetu @ Jitender Kumar
Jain,residentofAhmedabadwhowasafinancierbookieandfixer,
wasfoundtobelinkedwith Manan and ChandBhai. AmitKumar
Singh was also foundtobeintouch with Jitu, ChandBhai and
Manan.AjitChandilawasalsofoundtobeintouchwithabookieof
DelhiidentifiedasBhupenderNagar,whointurnwasintouchwith
VickyChaudhary,VinodSharma@MonuandoneSusu@Nitin
JainandwithDeepak,abookieofPunjab.ThisDeepakwaslinkedto
17 of 175
Rocky @ Raj and one Sandeep Sharma who were found to be

financingfixing/bettingactivitiesofDeepak.
On05.05.2013,amatchwasplayedbetweenRajasthanRoyals
andPuneWarriersatSawaiMaanSinghStadium,Jaipurfrom2000
hoursonwards.TheinterceptedcallsrevealedthatAjitChandilahad
aconversationwith AmitSingh whodirectedhimtogiveaway14+
runsbeforethesecondoverofhisbowlingspell,aftergivingapre
decided signal. Ajit bowled first over and gave nine runs. In the
second over, Chandila gave away 14 runs but forgot to give pre
decided signal to the fixer accused Manan which made accused
ChandreshPatelupsetastheycouldnotbookthesession,whichwas
fixedforgains.
Likewise,SreesanthofRajasthanRoyalswasfoundtohave
been fixed by Chandresh and Manan through his friend Jiju for
deliveryofafixedperformanceinthematchscheduledfor09.05.2013
betweenRajasthanRoyalsandKingsXIPunjabatMohali(Punjab),in
lieuofhugeamountofmoney.Amitwasfoundtobeaprimefacilitator
oftheteam.Sreesanthgaveapredeterminedsignalbytuckinghis
hand towel in his trouser atthestartofthesecondoveranddid
18 of 175
extendedwarmupexercisesandalsomadebesteffortstogivethe
desirednumberofruns.
In the cricket match played between Rajasthan Royals and
MumbaiIndianon15.05.2013,asperthebookiesAnkitChavangive
away14+runsinthepredecidedover.
10
In the intervening night of 15/16 May, 2013 police team
conductedraidinDelhiandMumbai.MumbaiPolicearrestedseven
accusedpersonsnamely,Sreesanth,AnkitChavan,AjitChandila,
AmitKumarSingh, PokenJijuJanardhan, MananUBhatt and
ChandreshPatel.ThepoliceteaminDelhiapprehendedotherseven
accusednamely,AshwaniAggarwal,AjayGoyal,AmitGupta,Dipit
Garg,RamakantAggarwal,DeepakKumarandRakesh@Rocky.
Hugerecoveryofover50mobilephones,6laptops,1ipad,1Dish
TVsettopbox,3internetcards,3WiFirouters,2calculators,1
multiplemobilechargingplasticbox,1HPprinter,1tvdecodarofset
max, 1 TV decodar of another company, 1 LCD of 40 inches,
handwrittendiaries,papersandvariousothercommunicationmaterial
were recovered from Delhi and Mumbai.On 19.05.2013,in araid
conductedatAurangabad,MaharashtraManishGuddewarandtwo
19 of 175
fixers namely, Kiran Dhole and Sunil Bhatia were arrested. On

21.05.2013BabuRao,residentofNagpur,wasarrestedfromDelhi.
11
Duringtheinterrogationofaccused Chandresh,herevealed
thathealongwithone Amir,hadattemptedtoinfiltrate anotherIPL

team.Onthebasisofrevelation,certainothermobilephoneswere
recovered from accused Amir. The calls of Amir and his other
associatesnamely, Mohd.Yahiya wereintercepted.On24.05.2013,
accused Mohd. Yahiya, resident of Hyderabad was arrested from
Mumbai.On26.05.2013,accusedBabuSunilChanderSaxenawas
arrested from Hyderabad. Accused Syed Durrey Ahmed was
arrested on 27.05.2013. Accused Bhupender was arrested on
27.05.2013fromDelhi.
12
On 01.06.2013, it was revealed that the mobile phone no.
923332064488 belongs to Dawood Ibrahim Chota Shakil and

accordingly,anapprovalunderSection23(1)MCOCAwasgranted
bytheJointCommissionerofPolice,SpecialCellvideorderdated
03.06.2013.Accordingly,Section3and4ofMCOCAwasadded.
13
On 08.06.2013 the investigation revealed that accused
20 of 175
Ramesh Bajranglal, a major bookie was closely associated with

syndicateofDawood. Hewasarrestedinthiscaseon08.06.2013.
Accused Firoz Farid Ansari, another close associate of accused
Dawoodwasarrestedon11.06.2013fromMumbai.Hewasfoundto
beintouchwith Salman@Master,aPakistanbasedmemberof
DawoodChotaShakilsyndicate.Onemorefixer/memberofthis
syndicate namely, Jitender Kumar Jain was arrested from
Ahmedabadon27.06.2013.
14
It was thus submitted in the charge sheet, that the
investigations have revealed the spot/session fixing activities that

weregoingoninanorganizedmanner.Largenumberofpeoplewere
placingthebetwithmegabookiesandtheirassociatesresultingin
generationofmoneyondailybasis.Thesettlementofaccountwas
allegedly being done through Hawala channels. It was further
submittedthatthenetworkoftheseactivitiesthatwasspreadoverin
Delhi and other places in India, was being organized by Dawood
Ibrahim syndicate and there are four cases registered against
accusedChotaShakilinwhichaccusedChotaShakilisoneofthe
wanted accused. All these cases related to offences which are
cognizable in nature and having punishment of three years and
21 of 175
above.Thecognizancehasbeentakenbythecourtofcompetent
jurisdictioninmorethanonecaseintheprecedingtenyears.
15
AccusedDawoodhasbeendeclaredasinternationalterrorist
andisfacingstringentsanctionsbyUNSecurityCouncil. Achart
annexedherewithhasbeenfiledtoshowthelinkagesbetweenallthe
accusedwithDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel.
22 of 175
16
The charge sheet was filed in the court on 30.07.2013.
Documents were supplied to all the accused under Section 207

Cr.P.C.
17
DetailedargumentshavebeenaddressedbyLd.SpecialPP
Sh.RajivMohanandbyrespectiveLd.Counselonbehalfofallthe
accusedpersons.
ARGUMENTSONBEHALFOFSTATE
18
Themainargumentaddressedby Ld.SpecialPP wasfrom
thestatementofobjectsoftheAct,itisevidentthatthepresentlegal
and adjudicatory system was found incapable of curbing and
controllingthemenaceoforganizedcrime.Therefore,MCOCAwas
enacted to make the offence of organized crime punishable. An
individualcanfallwithinthescopeofMCOCAwhenheisactingeither
singlyorjointlyasamemberofthesyndicate.Anyunlawfulactivity
whichiscommittedinanorganizedmannertogeneratewealthorto
getundueeconomicadvantagewouldfallwithinthescopeofthisAct.
There is clear evidence by virtue of intercepted calls and other
recoveries made from various accusedcoupled withconfessionof
variousaccusedu/s18ofMCOCAwhicharepreseadmissible,which
primafacieestablishtheconspiracyandalsothemoneyflowand
23 of 175
settlementofthemoneygeneratedbybettinginanorganizedmanner.
ReliancehasbeenplacedontheobservationsmadebytheApex
CourtinthecaseofStateofMaharashtrav.V.VishwanathMarana
Shetty wherein the bail was rejected solely on the grounds of
existenceofevidenceintheformofCDRconnectivity,confessional
statementsofcoaccusedandotherevidence.
19
Ithasbeenarguedthatitisnotessentialthatthereshouldbe
atleast two FIR in the preceding 10 years against each of the

accused.TwoFIRsagainstanymemberoftheorganizedsyndicateis
sufficientforinvokingtheprovisionofMCOCA,ifitisestablishedthat
they are the members of organized crime syndicate. For this Ld.
Counsel has relied upon Govind Sakharam Dubey v. State of
Maharashtra,2009allMR(CRI)1903(byBombayHighCourt).This
aspectisalsoclearfromthedefinitionoforganizedcrimebecausein
thisdefinitionitisincorporatedthatsuchactivitymaybepecuniaryor
undueeconomicaladvantageorotheradvantageforhimselforforthe
advantageofanyotherperson.Thelegislaturewascarefultoinclude
facilitators,abettorsandcoconspiratorswhocanbechargedforthe
offenceundersection3(2)ofMCOCA,thoughtheymaynothave
participatedinactualcommissionofcrime.Forthisreliancehasbeen
24 of 175
placed on Mohd. Farrukh Abdul Gaffur and Ors. v. State of

Maharashtra,JT2009(II)SC47andManojRameshMehtav.State
ofMaharashtra,Crl.AppealNo.1868/2008.
20
Also, Dawood and Chota Shakeel are wanted accused in
different charge sheets filed by the CBI in connection with serial

MumbaiBlastsof1993.Inallthesecases,thecourtofcompetent
jurisdictionhastakencognizanceinlastpreceding10years.Thus,the
activities of DawoodChota Shakeel gang qualify for continuing
unlawfulactivityasdefinedu/s2(d)oftheAct.Itissubmittedthat
in furtherance of this continuing unlawful activity, this gang has
committedthe presentactivitieswhicharethesubjectmatterofthe
investigations.
21
The core syndicate comprises of Dawood, Chota
Shakeel, Javed Chutani (Dubai), Salman (Pakistan), Firoz

(absconding), Ashwani Aggarwal @ Tinku, Ramesh Vyas, Sanjay
Aggarwal@ChhottaNagpur,SunilBhatia,JitenderJain@Jeetuand
ChandreshJain@Jupiter.
22
Itisarguedthattheinterceptedcallsclearlyshowthat
25 of 175
there exists a crime syndicateandalltheaccusedmembersare

involvedintheorganizedcrime.
23
Thenextargumentisthatitisnotnecessarythatthe
saidcriminalcasesregisteredagainsttheaccusedmustbeinregard
to similar offences. It was argued that the five cases registered
againsttheaccusedrevealtheallegationsofcontractkilling,extortion
andviolence.
24
Itwasarguedthatvariousphonecallsinterceptsand
forensicevidenceprimafacieshowsthatitwas Jupiter whowasin

touch with accused Ashwani Aggarwal, and accused Salman @
Master and RameshVyashavebeentalkingtoeachother.Inturn,
accused Ashwani Aggarwal and Ramesh have been in touch.
Likewise, the nexus between accused Sunil, Kiran, Ashwani and
Ramesh Vyas is also established from the evidence on record.
AccusedDawood,ChotaShakil,Javed,Salman,FirozFaridAnsari,
Ashwani Aggarwal, Ramesh Vyas, Sanjay, Sunil, Chandresh and
Jitenderhavebeenshowntoformtheinnercoresyndicateofwhich
theotheraccusedaremembers.
26 of 175
25
It is thus, argued that there is sufficient material on
recordtoprimafaciemakeoutacaseu/s3and4ofMCOCAagainst
theaccusedpersons.
ARGUMENTSONBEHALFOFACCUSEDPERSONS
26
The mainargument thatisbeingaddressedonbehalfofall
the accused persons is that the provisions of MCOCA are not

attracted in the present case. It has been argued that the first
requirementisthattheremustbeanorganizedcrimesyndicate.
ToqualifyasacrimesyndicatetherehastobeatleasttwoFIRsin
preceding10yearsagainsttheaccusedwhoformthepartofcrime
syndicate.Admittedly,noFIRhaseverbeenregisteredagainstanyof
the accused except Dawood and Chhota Shakeel. The basic
requirementforinvokingMCOCA,itselfisnotsatisfied.
27
Further,thecontinuingunlawfulactivitywhichwasallegedly
undertakenbythecrimesyndicate,whichinfactdoesnotexist,isin
regardtobettingandmatchfixing. However,noneofthefour
FIRswhichareallegedlyregisteredagainstChhotaShakeelandthe
oneFIRagainstDawoodandChhotaShakeelareinregardtobetting
andmatchfixing.
27 of 175
28
Thereisabsolutelynonexusthathasbeenestablishedeven
primafacie,ofanyoftheaccusedwiththisallegedcrimesyndicate.
Moreover,bettingisnotan offenceexceptmaybeunderGambling
Act,butthenitisnotpunishablewithasentenceofthreeyearsor
more.Theoffenceofgamblingdoesnotqualifyasacrimeinregardto
whichMCOCAcanbeinvoked. Moreover,thereisnoevidenceto
showthataccusedpersonsweremembersofthisorganizedcrime
syndicate.Theentirecaseoftheprosecutionevenifadmitted,does
notprimafacieestablishthattheaccusedweremembersoforganized
crime syndicate or that they had indulged in continuing unlawful
activitiesofanoffencewhichispunishablewithasentenceofthree
years.Itisthus,arguedthatnocaseu/sMCOCAismadeoutagainst
anyoftheaccused.
29
IthasbeenfurtherarguedatlengthbyLd.Counselforeachof
theaccusedthateventheindividualrolethathasbeenassignedto
eachoftheaccused,alsodoesnotprimafacieestablishthatthey
werepartoftheorganizedcrimesyndicateorthattheyhadcommitted
anyoffenceforwhichchargescanbeleveledagainstthem.Thedetail
argumentsasaddressedbyallthecounselsinthisregardshallbe
28 of 175
consideredinduecourse.
30
Ihaveheardthearugmentsandperusedthewrittenarguments
andalsotherecord.Myobservationsareasunder:
31
Thisisacasewhichraisesseriousconcernsabout
therampantrotthathassetinsports,especiallythecommercial
sportsandtheadequacyofexistingLawstodealeffectivelywith
the prevailing situation in the world of sports. As per the
prosecution,thereexistsacorecrimesyndicateofunderworld
donDawoodIbrahim,ChhotaShakeel,Salman,Ehteshyamwho
are indulging in crimes of violence, extortion, boot legging,
moneylaundering,etc.inanorganizedmanner.Thiscoregroup
through Dr. Javed Chutani is in contact with Mega bookies
namely, Ashwani Aggarwal, Ramesh Vyas, Firoz Farid Ansari,
JitenderJainandChandreshJain@Jupiter.KiranDholeand
SunilBhatiaaretheassociatesofAshwaniAggarwalwhohave
been workingasconduitstoapproachcricketplayersnamely,
AjitChandila,AnkitChavanandSreesanththroughtheirfriends
Jitu Janardhan, Abhishek Shukla and Manan U. Bhatt. Other
persons involved as associates are Babu Rao Yadav, Vikas
29 of 175
Choudhary,NitinJainandVinodSharma.Broadlyspeaking,the
categoriesofpeopleinvolvedinthissyndicateare:
(1) CoreSyndicate;
(2) MegaBookies;
(3) Theconduitsandassociates;and
(4) Compromisedplayers.
32
What is to be considered at this stage is whtehr the
prosecutionhasbeenabletoestablishaprimafaciecaseagainstthe
accusedpersonsunderMCOCAandotherActs.
33
Whileexercisingpowers underSection227 oftheCodeof
Criminal Procedure, for considering the question of framing of

charge, the Court undoubtedly has power to sift and weight the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
primafacie case against the accused has been made out. If the
materialplacedbeforetheCourtdisclosesgravesuspicionagainstthe
accused,thentheCourtwouldbefullyjustifiedinframingchargeand
proceedingwiththetrial. Itwasnotedinthecaseof Unionof
Indiavs.PrafullKumar1979SCC(Criminal)609thattheCourt
cannotactmerelyasapostofficeoramouthpieceoftheprosecution
buthastoconsiderthebroadprobabilitiesofthecase,thetotaleffect
oftheevidenceandthedocumentsproducedbeforetheCourt,butit
shouldnotmakearovinginquiryintotheprosandconsofthematter
andweighthematterasifitisconductingthetrial.
30 of 175
34
ApexCourtinthecaseofSajanKumarVs.CBI(9)SCC
368 laid down the principles for consideration of charge. It was

observed that the test to determine the prima facie case would
depend upon the factsof each case. Where the material placed
beforetheCourtdisclosesgravesuspicion,theCourtwouldbefully
justifiedinframingthechargeandproceedingwiththetrial. Before
framing the charge, the court must apply its judicial mind on the
materialplacedonrecordtosatisfythatthecommissionofoffenceby
theaccusedwaspossible.Further,iftwoviewsarepossibleandone
of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave
suspicion,thetrialCourtwouldbejustifiedtodischargetheaccused.
Atthisstageheisnottoseewhetherthetrialwouldendinconviction
oracquittal.
31 of 175
35
Inthecase of GovindSakharamUbhe v. Stateof
Maharashtra,Crl.Appealno.18of2009decidedon11.06.2009
afterconsideringthevariousjudgmentsBombayHighCourtsummed
upthelawatthestageof227Cr.P.C.Itwasstatedthatthecasehas
to be set aside after shifted the material collected upon the
prosecutionthatthereisgroundforpresumingthattheaccusedhas
committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for
proceedingagainsthim.Theinquirymustnotbedirectedtofindout
whether the case will end in conviction. Though roping is not
permissible but the court has to consider whether the material
collected if accepted as it is without being subjected to cross
examinationwouldgiverisetostrongandgravepresumptionabout
thecommissionofoffencebytheaccused.However,ifthescaleasto
theguiltandinnocenceoftheaccusedarefoundthenthecourtmust
proceedwithframingofcharge.Thereisnoquestionofgivingbenefit
ofdoubttotheaccusedatthisstageandtodischargehim.Thiscan
bedoneonlyattheconclusionoftrialbutiftwoviewsarepossible
andthecourtissatisfywiththeevidencegivesrisetosomesuspicion
butnotgravesuspicionitwouldbewellwithintherighttodischarge
theaccused.
36
Inthelightoftheseprinciples,thematerialonrecordhastobe
consideredtoseeifitgivesrisetogravesuspicionoftheoffenceas
definedinMCOCA,beingcommittedbytheaccusedpersons.
37
Beforeconsideringthecaseonmerits,itwouldbeworthwhile
torefertotherelevantprovisionoftheAct.
32 of 175
38
MCOCAwasenactedtomakespecialprovisionforprevention
andcontrolandforcopingwithcriminalactivityofanorganizedcrime
syndicate and gang and for the matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The Statement of Object and Reasons for
enactingthisActgivesanimportantinsighttoassesstheintentionof
legislatureformakingthisenactment. Itwasstatedthatorganized
crimehasbecomeaseriousthreattothesocietyinthelastfewyears.
Thiscrimehasnonationalboundaryandwasfueledbyillegalwealth
generated by contract killing, extortion, smuggling in contrabands,
illegal trade and narcotics, kidnappings for ransom, collection of
protection money and money laundering, etc. The proportion of
amountsogeneratedwassohugethatithadseriousadverseeffect
ontheeconomy.Itwasseenthattheseorganizedcrimesyndicates
madeacommoncausewithterroristgangsandfosteredterrorism
whichextendedbeyondnationalboundaries.Theexistinglegalframe
workwasfoundtoberatherinadequatetocurborcontrolthemenace
oforganizedcrime.Therefore,itwasdecidedthataspeciallawwith
stringentanddeterrentprovisionstobeenactedtocontrolthemenace
oftheorganizedcrime.
39
Under this Act, it is the membership of a organized crime
syndicate which has been made punishable independent of the

offencethatmaybecommittedbytheaccusedsinglyorjointlyasa
memberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.TheprovisionsoftheAct
aresignificanttodepriveapersonofhisrightofclaimataveryinitial
stage of investigation making it extremely difficult for him to even
obtainbail.Otherprovisionsrelatingtoadmissionofoffencecollected
throughelectronicmediahasalsobeenprovided.Itwasobservedin
33 of 175
thecaseofPrafulPatelandLalitSomNagpalthatwhileinterpreting
theprovisionsregardmustbehadthattheprosecutionmustbeable
tomakeitaclearprimafaciecaseagainsttheaccusedpersonsfor
continuationofthetrial.
40
Section 3 Sub Section (i) provides for punishment for
organizedcrime.
41
The term organized crime syndicate is defined under
Section2(f)asunder:
A groupoftwoormoreperson who,actingeithersinglyor
collectively, as a syndicate or a gang indulging in activities of
organizedcrime.
42
Therefore,organizedcrimesyndicatemeansagroupoftwoor
morepersonsactingeithersinglyorcollectively,asasyndicateor
gangindulginginactivitiesoforganizedcrime.
43
OrganizedcrimeisdefinedunderSection2(e)asunder:
organizedcrimemeansanycontinuingunlawfulactivityby
anindividual,singlyorjointly,eitherasamemberofanorganized
crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of
violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other
unlawfulmeans,withtheobjectiveofgainingpecuniarybenefits,or
gainingundueeconomicorotheradvantageforhimselforanyother
personorpromotinginsurgency;
Theessentialingredientsoftheorganizedcrimearethatthere
is(i)continuingunlawfulactivity,(ii)byanindividual,singlyorjointly,
eitherasamemberofanorganizedcrimesyndicateoronbehalfof
34 of 175
such syndicate, (iii) by use of violence or threat of violence or

intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, (iv) with the
objectiveofgainingpecuniarybenefitsforhimselforanyotherperson
orpromotinginsurgency.
44
The term continuing unlawful activity has been defined
underSection1(d)whichreadsasunder:
An activity which is prohibited by law and is a cognizable

offence punishable with three or more years is undertaken either
singlyorjointly,asamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicateinrespect
ofwhichmorethanonechargesheethasbeenfieldbeforetheCourt
ofcompetentjurisdictionwithintheprecedingperiodoftenyearsand
thatcourthastakencognizanceofsuchoffence.
45
Theessentialingredientsofcontinuingunlawfulactivity,are(i)
theact isprohibitedbylawforthetime beinginforcewhichisa

cognizableoffencepunishablewithimprisonmentofthreeyearsor
more, (ii) undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an
organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, (iii) in
respectofwhichmorethanonechargesheetshavebeenfiledbefore
acompetentCourtwithintheprecedingperiodoftenyearsand(iv)
Courthastakencognizance.
OrganizedCrimeSyndicate
46
Thefirstaspectwhichneedstobeascertainediswhetherthe
prosecutionhasbeenabletoshowtheexistenceofanorganized
crime syndicate. The case of the prosecution is that Dawood
Ibrahim,ChottaShakeelsyndicateforoverlastthirtyyearshavebeen
indulgingincrimesofvarioussophisticationandgravementinpursuit
ofearningillegitimatewealth.Frompettybeginningsassmugglersof
35 of 175
regulatedarticlesbyavoidingcustomsdutytototaldominationofthe
contractkilling/protectionmoneyunderbellytomanufacture/tradeof
narcotics and fake currency and finally to the gravest crime of
financingandexecutingterrorism,thissyndicatehasdevelopedvast
anddeepinterestsintherealestateandconstructionactivitiesnot
onlyinIndiabutacrossmanySouth/SouthEastandMidWestAsian
countries.Thissyndicatehasattendedfurtherdiversificationoftheir
illicitactivitiestothefieldofcricketasitisahugemoneychurner,
legallyaswellasillegallyintermsofthethenexistingunorganized
bettingmarketsspreadacrossIndia. Theentryofthissyndicatein
thisfixingandbettingmarketwasfeltwiththeintegrationofIndian
local betting markets with their Pakistan and Dubai based
counterparts. Thisintegrationofmarketsalongwithstreamliningof
money transfers through Hawala and certainty of settlements by
musclepoweropenedupahugeavenueofmakingwindfallgainsby
thissyndicate.Ithasbeenthus,concludedthattheprimemoversof
this organized crime syndicate are Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta
Shakeel.
47
Theprosecutionhasclaimedthatonthebasisoftelephonic
intercepts between players and fixers which established the

conspiracyforunlawfulactivitybetweenthecompromisedplayersand
major bookies, the FIR in the present case was registered on
09.05.2013.Theprimarynumberthatwasreceivedaspartofsecret
informationwas+923332064488,aPakistanimobilenumber.Itwas
found that this number was in touch with a Dubai number
+971561363786. TheCentralIntelligenceAgencyhasconfirmedin
their report placed on record in sealed cover that telephone No.
36 of 175
+923332064488 is being used by Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta

Shakeel.Itwasalsofoundthatduringtheconversation,twopersons
werefoundtalkingtoDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeelbyusinga
Dubainumber971504560616andoneofthemintroducedtheotheras
Javed Chutani. Further, on the scrutiny of mobile number
923332064488(whichwasidentifiedtobeusedbyDawoodIbrahim
andChottaShakeel)itwasfoundtobeintouchwithmobilenumber
971561363786whichwasclaimedtobethatofJavedChutani.
48
Thecaseoftheprosecution,therefore,isthattheorganized
crime syndicate isthatofDawoodIbrahim andChottaShakeelof

whichalltheotheraccusedarethemembers.
49
The crime syndicate is traced to mobile number
923332064488,aPakintaninumberwhichaccordingtoprosecution
hasbeendisclosedbyCIAtobeusedbyDawoodandChottaSha
keel.Ithasbeenfurtherclaimedbytheprosecutionthattherewasno
recordavailable,butwithgreatdifficultytheyhavebeenabletotrace
outawitnesswhohasidentifiedthevoiceonthesaidmobilenumber
tobethatofDawoodIbrahim.Thesignificantthingtonoteisthatac
cordingtotheprosecutionthisPakistaninumberwasbeingusedby
DawoodIbrahim(whoisbasedinPakistan)andbyChottaShakeel
(whoisbasedinDubai).Itisdifficulttocomprehendastohowthe
samemobilenumberwasbeingusedbytwopersonwhowereplaced
indifferentcountries.
50
It was argued that there was international roaming on this
numberanditwasbeingtakenbytheconcernedpersonwithhim
37 of 175
whiletravelingtoDubai.Itisafarfetchedconclusionthathasbeen
drawnasthereisnotaniotaofadmissibleevidencetoshowthatthe
saidmobilenumberwasbeingusedbyDawoodIbrahimandChotta
Shakeel.ItissignificanttonotethatadmittedlyChottaShakeelhas
notbeenidentifiedtobetalkingonthisnumbertoeitherDawood
Ibrahimortoanyoftheotheraccusedwhoareclaimedtobethe
membersofthecrimesyndicate.Thereiscompleteabsenceofany
evidence whatsoevertoshowthatthisnumberwasallegedlyever
usedbyChhotaShakeel.
51
Thesecondaspectwhichisclaimedbytheprosecutionisthat
whiletalkingonmobilenumber 923332064488withtheintercepted
callonnumber971504560616on26.03.2013,thepersonontheother
sidehadmadeonepersontalktoanotherpersonplacedinPakistan,
byaddressinghimasChutani.Thesearchwasmadeanditwas
found that Javed Chutani @ Doctor was the subscriber of phone
number971561363786andhewasbasedinDubai.Thereisagain
not an iota of evidence except conjectural conclusion of the
prosecution to claim that Javed Chutani is the subscriber of this
mobileorhasbeenusingthismobilenumber.
52
The prosecution has then asserted that there have been
frequent calls between mobile number 971561363786 which is

claimedtobeusedbyJavedChutaniandmobilenumbersofaccused
Ashwani Aggarwal. Further, the CFSL report has conclusively
establishedthatthepersonwhohadtalkedasChutanionPakistani
mobilenumber 923332064488(usedbyDawoodChhotaShakeel)
and the person who had been in touch with accused Ashwani
38 of 175
Aggarwalwasoneandthesameperson. Significantly,thereisno
evidencetoshowthat971561363786mobilenumberhadeitherbeen
subscribedorwasbeingusedbytheaccusedwhohasbeennamed
asDoctorJavedChutani.Theonlybasisforconcludingthisisthatin
thefirstcallfromthePakistaninumber,thethird personwhohad
talkedinbetweenwasintroducedasJavedChutaniandhisvoice
matchedwiththepersontalkingonthemobilenumberwithAshwani
Aggarwal.Thepersonwhowasusingmobilenumber971561363786
(claimedtobeJavedChutani)mayhavebeenconstantlyintouchwith
many Indian members including that of Ashish Agarwal @ Tinku
Mandi,butthatdoesnotshowthatitwasaccusedJavedChutaniwho
hadbeenmakingthosecalls.
53
Itispertinenttomentionthataspertheprosecution,thelink
btween Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta Shakeel, the prime crime

syndicateandthatwiththeotherbookieswasthisJavedChutani.
However, there is no evidence to establish the identity of Javed
Chutaniandhehasnotevenbeenarrestedinthiscase.Also,thereis
nothingonrecordtoshowthatJavedChutaniwasamemberofthe
organizedcrimesyndicateofDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel.
Thereisonlyoneconversationof26.03.2013betweenthealleged
numberofDawoodIbrahimandanothernumberofDubaiinwhich
one person who was addressed as Javed Chutani, had a
conversation.Theentireconversationasinterceptedonthesaidday
hasbeenreproduced,butfromthesaidconversationnoinference
whatsoever can be drawn that Javed Chutani was a member of
organized crime syndicate. An innocuous interjection cannot be
sufficienttoconcludethatthisJavedChutaniwasapartnerincrime
39 of 175
withDawoodChhotaShakeel.Admittedly,thereisnoFIRregistered
againstJavedChutani,whattotalkofprecedingtenyears.Thereis
notaniotaofevidenceonrecordtoshowthatJavedChutaniwasa
memberoforganizedcrimesyndicateofDawoodIbrahimandChotta
Shakeel. Noneoftheotheraccusedareclaimedtobeindirector
indirecttouchwithDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel. Oncethe
only link between Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta Shakeel and other
accused is not established, it cannot be said that whatever the
activitiesthatwerebeingcarriedbyallotheraccused,wasaspartof
organizedcrimesyndicate.
MorethanoneFIRinprecedingtenyears
54
Theotherrequirementforestablishingtheoffencepunishable
under Section 3 of MCOCA is that the said organized crime

syndicatemustbeinvolvedincontinuingunlawfulactivity.
55
Inordertoqualifyascontinuingunlawfulactivityasdefined
undersection2(1)(d)oftheAct,thefollowingrequirementsneedto
besatisfied
a)
thatthisisanactivityprohibitedbylaw,whichisacognizableof
fencepunishablewithimprisonmentofthreeyearsormoreun
dertaken,eithersinglyorjointlyasamemberofanorganized
crimesyndicateoronbehalfofsuchsyndicateand:
40 of 175
b) Inrespectofitmorethanonechargesheetmusthavebeenfiled
before a competent court within, the preceding period of 10
yearsandthatcourthastakencognizanceofsuchoffence.
56
In the case of Ranjeet Singh Brahmjeet Singh
Sharma vs. StateofMaharashtra 20055SCC294,itwasob

servedthatinordertoconstitutecontinuingunlawfulactivity,morethanone
chargesheetallegingcommissionofcognizableoffencepunishablewith
imprisonmentofthreeyearsormorehasbeenfiledinrespectoftheal
legedunlawfulactivityundertaken eithersinglyorjointly. In Prafull vs.
StateofMaharashtra (Crl.)870theBombayHighCourt hasobserved
thatthoughthedefinitionareintertwinedinacyclic manner,buttheyare
clearandunambiguousanditwouldfollow thateachingredientofthe
definitionwouldhavetobeproved.Itwasfurthernotedthatmereproof
offilingchargesheetinthepastisnotenough.Itisonlyoneoftherequi
siteforconstitutingevidenceoforganizedcrime. Ifonlythepastcharge
sheetweresufficienttoconstituteanoffenceoforganizedcrime,thenit
wouldhaveviolatedthemandateofArticle21oftheConstitution.Itisnota
mattersimplyofanarithmaticalequation.Ifunlesstheallegationsofthe
aforesaidchargesheetpointoutthattheoffencewascommittedbytheac
cusedinthecapacityofamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicate,theprovi
sionsofMCOCAcannotbeinvoked.Toputitdifferently,thesaidallega
41 of 175
tionswouldnotsatisfytherequirementcontemplatedbytheexpression
continuingunlawfulactivity.
57
InthecaseofJaiSinghv.StateofMaharashtra,2003
(3)MaharashtraLJ866itwasobservedthatthereislotofdifferencebe
tweentheactoractivityitselfbeingtermedorcalledasanoffenceunder
statuteorsuchactoractivitybeingtakenintoconsiderationasoneofthe
requisitefortakingactionunderthestatute.Theformersituationhastosat
isfythemandateunderArticle20(1)oftheConstitution;incaseoflattersit
uation,itstandsontotallydifferentfooting.Forthepurposeoforganized
crimetherehastobeacontinuingunlawfulactivity.Thiscannotbesoun
lessatleasttwochargesheetsarefoundtobelodgedinrelationtoanof
fencepunishablewiththreeyearsimprisonmentduringtheperiodof10
years.
58
Theissuethatisthus,requiredtobeexaminediswhetherthere
existtwoFIRsinthepreceding10yearsinrespectofthecrimesyndicate.
Thefirstaspectwhichneedstobeconsiderediswhetherasperthedefini
tion,2FIRsinthepreceding10yearsisrequiredtoberegisteredagainst
eachmemberofthecrimesyndicateorwhetherthesaid2FIRsagainst
theorganizedcrimesyndicatewouldmeetthisrequirement.
42 of 175
59
This aspect wasconsideredin detail inthecaseof Govind
SakhaRamUbhevsStateofMaharashtra,CriminalAppealno.18/2009,
decidedon11June,2009,byDivisionbenchofBombayHighCourt. It
wasobservedthatthetermusedinthisdefinitionisinrespectofwhich
morethanonechargesheethasbeenfiled.Thisdoesnotrefertoeach
memberofcrimesyndicate,forinthatcasethewordswouldhavereadas
inrespectofwhommorethanonechargesheethasbeenfiled.Itwas
furtherobservedthatthemembersofcrimesyndicateoperateeithersingly
orjointlyinthecommissionoforganizedcrime.Theyoperateindifferent
modules.Apersonmaybeapartofamodulewhichjointlyundertakeswith
jointcrimeorheissinglyasamemberoforganizedcrimeoronbehalfof
suchsyndicate,takespart.Inboththesituations,MCOCAwouldapply.
Section3ofActropesapersonwhoasamemberoforganizedcrimesyn
dicate,commitscrimeI.eactsofextortionbygivingthreatsetc.togaineco
nomicadvantageorgainsupremacyasamemberofcrimesyndicate,ei
thersinglyorjointly.Thechargesheetisinrespectoforganizedcrimesyn
dicate. Itwas therefore, notedthatifwithintheperiodofpreceding10
years,morethanonechargesheethasbeenfiledinrespectoforganized
crimecommittedbythemembersofthatparticularcrimesyndicate,the
saidchargesheethadtobetakenagainsteachmemberofthesaidcrime
syndicateforthepurposeofapplicationofActagainsthim,evenifheisin
43 of 175
volvedinonecase.Theorganizedcrimecommittedbyhimwillbepartof
thecontinuingunlawfulactivityoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.Whatis
importantisthenexusorthelinkofthepersonwiththeorganizedcrime
syndicate.Thislinkisthecruxofthetermunlawfulactivityandifitis
notestablishedsuchpersoncannotberopedin.
60
InthecaseofGovindSakhaRam(supra),therewasnopre
cedingFIRagainsttheappellant,excepttheFIRinwhichMCOCAwasin
vokedagainsthim.Onthesefacts,itwasconcludedthateventhoughthere
wasnoprecedingFIRagainstthisappellant,buthecouldstillbecharged
withMCOCAifitcouldbeshownthattherewere2FIRsinpreceding10
yearsagainsttheorganizedcrimesyndicate,ofwhichhewasapart.
61
Therefore,inordertojudgeiftherewasanycontinuingunlawful
activitybytheorganizedcrimesyndicate,whatisrequiredtobeconsidered
iswhethertherearetwoFIRsinthepreceding10yearsagainstthecrime
syndicate.
62
TheprimarycrimesyndicateisclaimedtobeofDawoodand
Chotashakeel.AspertheprosecutiontheFIRsregisteredagainstthem
areasfollows
AgainstaccusedDawoodIbrahimandChhotaShakeel
Sl. FIR No. Section
NameoftheAccusedPersons
Date
44 of 175
of
No. &PS
1
FIR No.
20/03
PS
Brihan
Mumbai
cognizance
ChotaShakeelandDawoodIbrahm
syndicatealongwith9otheraccused.
Bothincolumn12andhavenotcharge
sheetedsincetheywereabsconding.
Notknown
AgainstaccusedChhotaShakeel
45 of 175
S FIR NO. & SECTIO NAME OF THE Date of cognizance

I PS
N
ACCUSED
inthecourt
N
PERSONS
o
.
1 FIRNo.
.
58/2006,
PSDCB
CID,
Mumbai
2 FIRNo.
. 03/2007;
PS:DCB
CID
Mumbai
Section AccusedChhota
Notknown
387/34 Shakeelincolumn
IPC r/w no.12andnot
section chargesheetedas
3 (1) (i), absconding.
3 (2), 3
(4)
Sixotheraccused
MCOCA personscharge
sheetedandfournot
chargesheeted
Section3 Chhota Shakeel in

02/115/3 column no. 12 as
87/34 absconding
IPC r/w
section
3 (1) (i),
3 (2), 3
(4)
MCOCA
Act
3 FIRNo.
Section Chargesheetednine
. 90/2010PS 302/34 accusedpersonsbut
:DCBCID IPC r/w no charge sheet
Mumbai section against accused
120B
Chhota Shakeel as
IPC r/w absconding and
section placed in column
3/25/27 no.12
Arms
Act r/w
section
3 (1) (i),
3 (2), 3
(4)
46 of 175
MCOCA
4 FIR No. Section Accused Chhota
. 32/2009 186/353/ Shakeel not charge
as
PSSpecial 307/120 sheeted
Cell,Delhi B IPC absconding and
r/w
placedincolumnno.
section 12. Other accused
25/27 were charge
Arms
sheeted.
Act
63
The bare perusal of above mentioned FIR would show that
thereisonlyoneFIRno.20/03whichisagainstDawoodandChhotaSha
keelwhichisrelieduponbytheprosecutiontoclaimthattheyformeda
crimesyndicateandcommittedcrimeswithotheraccusedpersons.There
quirementoflawisthattheFIRshouldbefiledwithinthepreceding10
yearsinordertoconstitutecontinuingunlawfulactivity.Theorderofthe
courttakingcognizanceonthisFIRhasnotbeenplacedonrecord.Onlyan
orderofsanctionundertheMCOCAhasbeenplaced.Itsperusalshows
thatthefirstsanctionagainst a setofaccusedwasgivenon12.03.2003
andsubsequentsanctionsweregivenagainsttheotheraccusedfromtime
totimeandthelastsanctionagainstthesetofaccusedwhowerearrested
subsequentlywasgrantedbyCommissionerofPolice,Brehanon16Octo
ber2004.FromthisorderofsanctionunderSection23(2)itcanbemade
out that this FIR would have been filed in the Court sometime in
March/April2003.Thoughthisisconjectural,butintheabsenceofcertified
47 of 175
copyoftheorderofthecourtshowingthedateonwhichcognizancehas
beentakenitcanonlybepresumedthatitmayhavebeenfiledinMarchor
April,2003.TheFIRinthepresentcasehasbeenregisteredon19May
2013whichisbeyondtheperiodof10years.ThisFIRwhichistheonlyFIR
whichhasarrayedChotaShakeelandDawoodaspartofcrimesyndicate,
isbeyondtheperiodof10yearsandcannotbeconsideredasoneofthe
FIRsagainsttheorganizedcrimesyndicate.
64
TheotherfourFIRsareagainstChotaShakeelandhisother
gangmembers.AlltheseFIRspertaintomurder,extortion,threat,butin
noneoftheseFIRsithasbeenallegedthatChotaShakeelwasallegedto
beinvolvedinthoseoffencesaspartofcrimesyndicateheadedbyDa
wood.Rather,fromtheperusaloftheFIRsandthechargesheets what
emergesisthatChotaShakeelwasthedonandwasrunningtheindepen
dentcrimesyndicatealongwithotheraccusedmentionedinthoseFIR.In
noneofthesecaseshehasbeenshownasapartofcrimesyndicatewith
DawoodAbrahim.
65
Section2(1)(f) providesthatanorganizedcrimesyndicate
wouldmeanagroupoftwoormorepersons.Inthepresentcase,thereare
notwoFIRsagainstthecrimesyndicateofDawoodChotaShakeel.
48 of 175
66
The connection between Chota Shakeel and Dawood was
soughttobeestablishedfromFIRno.20/03butthatFIRisnotwithinthe
periodofpreceding10years.TheotherfourFIRsareagainstChhotaSha
keelandothersandinnoneoftheseFIRs,hehasbeenshowntobea
memberorassociateofDawoodIbrahim.Thus,theprosecutionhasfailed
tosatisfytherequirementoftherebeingmorethanoneFIRagainstthe
crimesyndicateinthepreceding10years.
Cognizancebythecourt
67
Anotherconnectedaspectwhichneedstobedwelleduponis
thatinnoneoftheabovementionedFIRs,theaccusedDawoodandChota
Shakeelhavebeenchargesheeted.Inallthesecases,theyhavenotbeen
arrestedastheywereabscondingandhavebeenshownincolumnno.12
ofthechargesheet.Whetherinthisgivensituation,itcanbesaidthatthe
chargesheethasbeenfiledagainstthemandcognizancehasbeentaken
bycourtofcompetentjurisdiction,whichistheessentialrequirementof
Section2(1)(e)oftheAct.
68
Forthis,onemayrefertosection193oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedurewhichprovidesforcognizanceofoffencesbycourtsofses
sion.Thissectionisnegativelycouchedandprovidesthatcourtsofses
sioncantakenoteofcaseasthecourtoforiginaljurisdictiononlyafter
49 of 175
committalorderispassedbymagistrateunderCodeofCriminalProcedure.
Ontheotherhand,insection190(1)(b)thepowerofmagistratehasbeen
statedtomeanthathecantakecognizanceofanyoffencesubjecttothe
fulfillmentofrequirementsgivenunder(a),(b),(c)andnofurther.Whatnow
needstobeexaminediswhatismeantbycognizance.
69
InAjitKumarPalitvsStateofWestBengalandother,AIR
1963SC765thethreeJudgesbenchoftheApexCourtexplainedthatthe
wordcognizancehasnotesotericormystiquesignificanceincriminallaw
orprocedure.Itmerelymeanstobecomeawareofandwhenusedwithref
erencetoacourtorJudgetotakenoticeofjudicially.
70
It was observed in Emperor vs. Sourindra Mohan
Chuekorbutty,ILR37CAL412,thattakingcognizancedoesnotin
volveanyformalaction;orindeedactionofanykindbutoccursassoonas
Magistrateapplieshismindtothesuspectedcommissionofanoffence.
71
InR.RCharivs.StateofUP,AIR1951SC207,Itwasnoted
thatwordcognizancewasusedinthecourttoindicatethepointwhen
theMagistratetakesjudicialnoticeofanoffence.
72
In Fakrudin Ahmed vs. State of Uttranchal and another,
(2008)17SCC157,whileexplainingthetermcognizance,itwasex
plainedthatitisonlywhentheMagistrateapplieshismindandissatisfied
50 of 175
thattheallegations,ifproved,wouldconstituteanoffenceanddecidetoini
tiatetheproceedingsagainsttheallegedoffenderthatitcanbepositively
statedthatcognizanceisinregardtotheoffenceandnottheoffender.
73
Aftermakingreferencetoalltheaforementionedjudgments,the
ApexcourtinthecasePrasadSriKantProhitvsStateofMaharashtra,
inCriminalAppealno.19611970andotherappealsarisingoutofSLP
criminalno.190771of2011decidedon15.04.15,summedupthatcog
nizancewouldtakeplaceatapointwhentheMagistratefirsttakesjudicial
noticeoftheoffenceeitheronacomplaintorapolicereportoruponinfor
mationofpersonotherthanthepoliceofficer.Takingjudicialnoticeisnoth
ingbutperusingthereportofthepoliceofficerforproceedingfurtheron
thatreportbyopeningthefileandthereafter,takingfurtherstepstoensure
the presence of the accusedandallotherconsequentialstepsatlater
stagedependinguponthenatureofoffence,ortopassnecessaryorderof
committaltocourtofsessions.
74
Thequestionastotheimplicationofasupplementaryreport
filedbytheinvestigatingagencyundersection173(8)ofCr.P.C.wascon
sideredinthecaseof StateofWestBengal vs. SalapServiceStation
andothers,1994(3)SupplSIC318.Itwasstatedthatthequestionoftak
ingcognizancedoesnotariseatthisstagesincecognizancehasalready
beentakenonthebasisofmainchargesheet.Allthatsection 173(8)
51 of 175
Cr.P.C.laysdownisthattheinvestigatingagencycancarryonfurtherin
vestigationinrespectoftheoffenceafterthereportundersubsection2
hasbeenfiled.Thefurtherinvestigationmaydisclosesomefreshoffences,
itsconnectionwiththetransactionwhichissubjectmatteroftheearlierre
port.Section173(8)Cr.P.C.isonlytoenabletheinvestigatingagencyto
gatherfurtherinvestigation,whichcannotbefrustrated.
75
InthecaseofPurohit(Supra),theApexcourtthus,notedthat
thefilingofsupplementarychargesheetdoesnotandwouldnotamountto
takingcognizancebythecourtafreshagainstwhomsoeverwithrespectto
verysameoffence.Bywayofsupplementarychargesheetsomemoreac
cusedmayalsobeaddedtotheoffencewithrespecttowhichthecog
nizanceistakenbythejudicialMagistrate.Cognizanceistakenofthemain
offenceagainsttheaccusedalreadyarrayed.Thesupplementarycharge
sheetmayprovidescopefortakingcognizanceofadditionalchargesor
againstmoreaccusedwithreferencetotheoffence alreadytakencog
nizanceof.
76
Thispositionwasclarifiedinthecaseof C.R.E.FFinance
LimitedvsShriShantiHomes(PvtLtd)andanother,2005(7)SCC467,
whereinitwasagainreiteratedthatcognizanceistakenofoffenceandnot
theoffenderandtherefore,oncethecourtissatisfiedthatthecomplaint
disclosesthecommissionofoffenceandthereisnoreasontorejectthe
52 of 175
complaintandproceedfurtherwiththematter. Thecognizanceisthus,
takenattheinitialstagewhentheMagistrateperusesthecomplaintwitha
viewtoascertainwhetherthecommissionofoffenceisdisclosed.
77
InthecaseofPurohit(Supra),itwasconcludedthatifthe
cognizanceofoffenceistakenbytheMagistrateundersection190Cr.P.C
onthemainchargesheet,thiswouldsatisfyandfulfilltherequirementof
cognizanceofoffencebyfilingofmorethanonechargesheetbeforethe
competentcourtinpreceding10yearsasstipulatedundersection2(1)(d)
ofMCOCA,eveniftheaccusedinquestionhasbeennamedinsupplemen
tarychargesheetwhichmaybefiledaftertheregistrationofFIRunder
MCOCA.
78
Inthepresentcase,innoneoftheFIRsonwhichtheprosecu
tionhasrelied,theaccusedDawoodorChotaShakeelhadbeencharge
sheetedandhavebeenplacedincolumnno. 12. Inthecircumstances,
thereisnochargesheetwhatsoeverthathasbeenfiledagainstDawood
and/orChhotaShakeelinanyofthesecases.Butinviewofthediscussion
above,eventhoughinallthesecasescognizancehadbeentakenbycourt
ofcompetentjurisdictionoftheoffenceinthechargesheetsthatwerefiled
againsttheotheraccused,butthereareinfact,nochargesheetsinthese
FIRsagainstthemwichmaybeconsideredtoascertainiftherequirement
offilingofmorethanoneFIRinpreceding10yearsissatisfied.Therecord
53 of 175
showsthatnochargesheetinanyofthecasesrelieduponbytheprosecu
tionhasbeenfiledagainstDawoodorChottaShakeel.HadanySupple
mentarychargesheetbeenfiled,itcouldrelatebacktothedateonwhich
cognizancewastakeninmainchargesheet.Butinthepresentcase,no
chargesheetinanyofthethesecaseshasbeenfiledbytheprosecution
againstthem.
LinkorNexuswithCrimeSyndicate
79
Thequestionwhichnowcallsforattentioniswhethermerefilingof
FIRissufficientorthereismorewhichisrequiredtobeestablished.
80
Whileconsideringmorethan1F.I.Rinthepreceding10yearswhat
isrequiredforthepurposeofsatisfyingtherequirementofcontinuingun
lawfulactivity,wasexplainedinthecaseof LalitSomnathNagpal
(supra)thatitwouldnecessarilyentailcontinuousengagementinunlaw
fulactivityandtherehastobealivelinkbetweenallthedifferentoffences.
81
Likewise, in the case of Ranjeet Singh (supra) it was ex
plained,thattheremayormaynotbeanydirectroletoplayasregards
commissionofanorganizedcrime,butunlessanexuswiththeaccused
whoisthememberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicateoranoffenceinthe
natureofcrimeisestablished,onlybyshowingsomeallegedindulgenceof
54 of 175
theappellant,,hecannotbesaidtohavecommittedtheoffenceoforga
nizedcrime.
82
InthecaseofPrasadSriKantPurohit(Supra),theApexcourt
hadnotedthatinorderto offenceofcontinuingunlawfulactivityafterthe
thirdoccurrence,theinvolvementoftheaccusedmusthavebeenasmem
berofthesamegang.Inotherwords,evenifitwasheldthatmemberofor
ganizedcrimesyndicatesinglyorjointlyparticipatedonbehalfoforganized
crimesyndicatewithreferencetosuchparticipation having takenplace,
whatistobeensureditthatinallthreecasesthesamegangI.e.organized
crimesyndicatemusthavebeeninvolved.
83
InGovindSakhaRamUbe(supra)itwasemphasized
thatwhatisimportanttoqualifyascontinuingunlawfulactivityonbehalfof
organizedcrimesyndicateisthat,theremustbeanexusorlinkoftheac
cused with the organized crime syndicate. In the case of Prafula vs
State of Maharashtra, 2009 All LR (Criminal) 870, Bombay High
Court,areferencewasmadetothecaseofRanjeetSingh(supra)
anditwasconcludedthatmereproofoffilingofchargesheetinthepastis
notenough.Itisonlyoneoftherequisiteforconstitutingoffenceoforga
nizedcrime.Ifonlythepastchargesheetsweretobeenoughtoconstitute
theoffenceofcrimeitwouldhaveoffendedthemandateofArticle20(1)of
theConstitution.Itisnotamatterofsimplyoneofarithmeticalequation.A
55 of 175
nexusoftheaccusedwiththeorganizedcrimesyndicatehastobeestab
lished.Ifthepreviouscriminalhistoryofaccuseddenotesthattheyhad
beenchargedandtriedforthoseoffencesseparatelybeforecompetent
court,thereisnoquestionofsuchoffencesconstitutingtheoffenceoforga
nizedcrime.
84
InStateofMaharashtravs.RahulRamchandraDarud,2011
(SCC)OnlineBombay605,aftermakingareferencetotheaforementioned
judgmentsitwasconcludedthatwherethenexusofcommissionofoffence
bytheaccusedinthecapacityofamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicates
isnotestablished,thenMCOCAcannotbeinvokedasitdoesnotsatisfy
themandatoryrequirementcontemplatedbyexpressioncontinuingunlaw
fulactivity.
85
Inthepresentcase,thoughthereare 4 chargesheetsinthe
preceding10yearsthathavebeenfiledagainstChotaShakeel,butnoneof
thesechargesheetsshowthathewasapartofthiscrimesyndicateof
whichDawoodwastheHeadoramember.Hence,nonexusbetweenDa
wood and Chotta Shakeel hasbeenestablished andthus,FIRagainst
ChottaShakeelcannotbeconsideredagainsteverymember ofalleged
crimesyndicate.TherequirementofmorethanoneFIRinthepreceding10
yearsagainstorganizedcrimesyndicateistherefore,notsatisfied.
56 of 175
TerritorialJurisdiction
86
Anotheraspectwhichneedstobeconsideredistheaspectof
territorialjurisdiction.
87
Section6oftheActdealswiththejurisdictionofspecialcourt.
ItprovidesthattheoffencepunishableunderthisActshallbetriableonly
bythespecialcourtwithinwhoselocaljurisdiction,itwascommitted.
88
Theaspectofterritorialjurisdictionwasconsideredinthecase
of State v. Satya Prakash, Criminal MC No. 2138/2010 decided on

03.11.2011(Delhi)whereinoutofeightFIRs,two werefiledinDelhiand
restsixinDistrictGaziabad,UP.ThecognizanceonthesesixFIRscould
notbetakeninDelhiaschargesheetcouldnothavebeenfiledinDelhi.
OutofthetwoFIRsinDelhi,onewasagainstthetwoaccusedinwhichal
legationsofextortionweremade.However,inthesecondFIRtheinvolve
mentoftheseaccusedwasnotshown asmembersoforganizedcrime
syndicate.ItwasobservedthatnosanctionunderSection23couldhave
beengranted.Intheabsenceofvalidsanctionitwasheldthatthedesig
natedcourthasnojurisdictiontotrythesaidoffence.
89
InthelightofSection6of the Act,theSpecialCourtatDelhi
canhavejurisdictionifthechargesheetspertaintothecasesregisteredin
DelhionwhichcognizancecouldbetakenbycompetentcourtinDelhi.If
57 of 175
twoprecedingFIRsarenotwithinthejurisdictionofDelhi,thenthesanc
tiongrantedonthebasisofsuchchargesheetsisinvalidandnoprosecu
tionunderMCOCAcanbecarriedout.Similararetheobservationsmade
inthecaseofBrijeshvsArunKumar,Crl.Appealno.1358decided
on16.04.2015(DelhiHighCourt).
90
In the present case there is only one charge sheet against
ChotaShakeelwhichhasbeenfiledinDelhiinwhichChottalShakeelhas
beenshownincolumnNo.12andinthemainchargesheetagainstother
accused,thecognizancehasbeentakenbythecourtofcompetentjurisdic
tion.TheremainingFIRswereallregisteredinMumbai.Therequirement
ofmorethan one FIRonwhichcognizancehasbeentakenbycourtof
competentjurisdictionwhich is Delhiinthepresentcase,isnotsatisfied.
TheSanctionunderSection23oftheActhasnotbeengrantedvalidlyand
hence,nochargecanbeframedunderMCOCAagainstanyoftheaccused
persons,onthistechnicalground,aswell.
UseofViolence,coercionintimidationorotherunlawfulmeans
91
FromtheverydefinitionoforganizedcrimeunderSection2(e)it
isevidentthatnoteveryunlawfulactivitywhichisacognizableoffence
wouldbeencompassedinthedefinitionoforgaizedcrime.Ithastoneces
sarilyinvolvetheuseofviolation,coercion,intimidationorotherunlawful
58 of 175
means.TheBombayHighCourtinMadanvsStateofMaharashtra,2009
allLR(Criminal)447hadobservedthat'organizedcrime'wasnotsynony
mouswithcontinuingunlawfulactivity.Iforganizedcrimewastoreferonly
tofilingofmorethanonechargesheet,thentheentireSection18ofthe
Actwouldhavebecomeredundantasfilingoftwochargesheets perse
would be sufficient evidence to conclude the commission of organized
crime.Also,therewouldbenoneedtoexamineanywitnessandSection
19wouldberedundant.Further,theremaybenooccasiontocarryoutin
vestigationotherthancollectingcopyofthechargesheet.Consequently,it
wouldbe unnecessarytoseeksanctionofprosecutionaftercollectionof
suchchargesheet.Therefore,filingofmorethanonechargesheetbefore
thecompetentcourtisoneoftheincidenttoestablishcontinuingunlawful
activityanditmustbefurthershownthattherewashugeviolence,threat,
intimidationorcoercionbythemembersoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.
Thedefinitioncontinuingofunlawfulactivityusesthewordsviolence,threat
ofviolence,intimidationorcoercion.Themeaningofthesewordsasde
finedinOxfordDictionary(5thEdition)areasunder:
a)Threatoppression,compulsion,misery,danger,trytoforceorinduce
throughmeansofrebuke,threat,vehemence;
b) Violence stateofqualityofbeing viiolentinaction; Greatforceor
strengthinoperation;vehemence,severity,intensity.
59 of 175
c)Intimidationactionofintimidatingsomeone,especiallyinordertoin
terfere with the free exercise of political or social rights.
d) Coercion constraint,restraint,compulsion,controllingofactionby
force;compression;physicalpressure.
92
Inthecaseof RanjeetSingh(supra),itwasmentionedthat
word'violence'hasbeenusedonlyinSection146andSection153ofIPC.
Word'Intimidation'alonehasnotbeenusedinIPCexcept,underSection
506whichreferstocriminalintimidation.Theword'coercion'findsplace
onlyintheContractAct.
93
Inthiscase,itwasobservedthatifthewordsunlawfulmeans
wastobewidelyconstruedsoastoincludeanyorotherunlawfulmeans,
thentheoffencesofcheating,criminalbreachoftrustwouldalsobein
cludedwhichprimafacie,doesnotappeartobeintendedbytheParlia
ment.Itwasfurtherobservedthatthequestionwhetherunlawfulmeans
mustbeconstruedejusdumgeneriswiththeprecedingwords,wasleft
open.
94
ThisaspectwasconsideredbytheDelhiHighCourtinthecaseDr.
MahipalSinghvs.CBI2012Crl.LawJournal3110.Itwasobserved
that the principle of ejusdumgeneriswould apply whenparticular
wordspertainingtoaclass,categoryorgenusarefollowedby general
words.Insuchacase,thegeneralwordsareconstruedlimitedtothings
ofthesamekindasthosespecified.Therulereflectsanattempttorecon
ciletheincompatibilitybetweenspecificandgeneralwordsinviewofother
rulesofinterpretationthatallwordsinastatutearegiveneffect,ifpossi
60 of 175
ble. Thatastatuteneedstobereadasawholeandthatnowordsina
Statutearepresumedtobesuperfluous.Theruleappliesonlywhen:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The Statute enumerates the specific words ;

The space of enumeration constitutes a class or category;
That class or category is not exhorted by the enumeration;
Thegeneraltermfollowtheenumeration;and
e)
Thereisnoindicationofadifferentlegislativeintent.
95
Inthecaseof UnitedTownElectric vs. AttorneyGen
eralforNewfoundLand19391AllEnglandReporter423(PC),it
wasnotedthatrulecannotbeappliedunlessthereisagenusconstituted
oracategorydisclosed.Iftheprecedingwordsconstitutedescriptionofa
completegenus,therulehasnoapplication.Similararetheobservation
madeinAllenvs.Emmerson19441AllEnglandReporter344(KBD)
wherein, itwasheldthattoinvoketheapplication ofejusdumgeneris,
theremustbeadistinctgenusorcategory.Wherethisislacking,therule
cannotapply.
96
AftermakingthereferencetothesejudgmentsinthecaseofDr.
MahipalSingh(Supra)itwasobservedthatthetermsviolence,coer
cionandintimidationdonotbelongtothesamespecificgenusandthus,
thewordsunlawfulmeanscannotbereadejusdumgeneristothepre
cedingwordsandarerequiredtobewidelyconstrued,keepinginmindthe
intendedobjectoftheStatute.Itwasfurtherobservedthatthoughsimple
offenceofforgeryandcheatedcommittedmorethanoncewouldnotcome
withintheambitoforganizedcrime.However,thesamewouldnotbeap
plicabletoacasewherecheatingandforgeryaredonecontinuouslysoas
torig/manipulate theresultoftheexamination. Aspertheobjectsand
aimsofMCOCA,theactivitiesintendedtobecurbedwerementionedas
61 of 175
killing,extortion,smuggling,terrorism,illegaltradeandnarcoticsmoney
laundering,etc.Theoffencesofforgeryandcheatingbypersonationetc.
arealsocoveredunderthePreventionofMoneyLaunderingAct,2002.In
viewoftheaimsandobjectsofMCOCA,ifcheatingandforgeryiscommit
tedinamannerasanorganizedcrime,particularlyaffectingtheresultsof
examinationandthus,destabilizingtheeducationsystem,thesaidactivity
wouldcertainlyfallwithintheambitofunlawfulmeansasrequiredinorga
nizedcrimes.Thesaidunlawfulactivityhassomesemblancetocoercion,
intimidationetc.,asthesameisperformedbymanipulatingatanexten
sivelevel.
97
ThiscanbebestunderstoodinthefactsofLalitSomduttNag
pal(Supra)casewhere,theviolationofSalesTaxandExciseLawswas
heldbytheirLordshipstobenotintendedtobethebasisofapplicationof
provisionsofMCOCA.
98
Inthepresentcase,theorganizedcrimewhichistargetedisorga
nizedbettinginthegameofIPL6includingtheconsequentactivityoflaun
deringofmoneysogeneratedfromtheactivityofbettingandmatchfix
ing bymajorbookieslikeAshwaniAggarwal,RameshVyas,Chandresh
Jain,JitenderJain,FirozAnsarwhohavetheirnetworksthroughtheiras
sociates and links to approach cricket players like S. Sreesant, Ankit
chavhanandAjitChandilaformatchfixing.Itisallegedthattheseactivities
involvetransactionsofhugeamountsandexchangeofmoneybetween
bookies,playersandotherstakeholders.Ithasbeenvaguelyclaimedthat
attimesthreatsareextendedincaseofbreachofagreements.However,
consideringthenatureofthesetransactionsofmatchfixingandbetting
whichworkthroughwidespreadnetwork,itcanbevisualizedthatelement
ofintimidationandcoercionwouldinherentlybeinvolvedinthesedealings.
62 of 175
99
Theactivitiesofbettingandmatchfixingcouldqualifyasanyun
lawfulactivityinvolvingcoercionandintimidationwhichareundertaken
withtheobjectofpecuniarygain.
MoneyLaunderingandMatchfixingandbetting
100
Thenecessaryincidentofsportsbettingandmatchfixingisgener
atingstaggeringamountsofblackmoney.Moneylaunderingisanessen
tialcomponent,aswithoutitcrimereallywouldnotbe.Moneylaunderingis
aprocesswhichtransformstheproceedsofcrimeintoassetsthatappear
legitimateinnature,exampleproperlyfortpolios,luxurygoodssuchasart
worksoraccountsatreputablebanks.Thelaunderingofsuchdirtymoney
perpetuatesthepowerandinfluenceofsuchcriminalenterprisesbyre
sourcingbribingandcorruptionofkeypoliticalandlawenforcementfigures
andthus,itaffordssuchenterprisesfortheprotectionincarryingouttheir
trade.Thecountriesexchequerisdeniedsignificantrevenueandbringsfi
nancialinsurgencybesides,resultingitterroristactivities.Gamblingplat
formsprovideauniqueconduitforlaunderingtheproceedsofcrimesuch
thattheyemergeaslegitimatebusinessrevenue.Inthepresentcaseit
hadbeenobliquelyreferredthatthemoneywhichwasbeinggenerated
throughthisbettingandmatchfixingwasbeingtransactedthroughHawala
transactions. To corroborate this theprosecution hadrelied onvarious
SMSmessagesexchangebetweenAshwaniAggarwalandotherasso
ciates.SendingofSMSswithouttherebeinganycorroborativeevidencein
thenatureofbankaccounts,moneytransactionsorothermanifestationsof
thismoneyinmaterialform,cannotbeconsideredassufficientevidenceto
makeoutevenaprimafaciecaseofHawalabeingdoneoftheillegal
moneyallegedlygeneratedinthisbusiness.Itissignificanttonotethat
SanjayAggarwal@chotuwasallegedtobefaceforinvestmentforthisil
63 of 175
legalmoney,butinvestigationshavenotrevealedamassingofanyprop
ertyormoneyinthebankaccountswhichwasnotaccounted.Likewas
propertydetailsofAshwaniAggarwaldonotreflectanydisproportionatein
vestmentorwealth.
101
The prosecution has claimed that money was being transacted
throughHawala,butthisisnotingconjectures,surmisesandpresumptions
whichhasdrawnfromthefactoftherebeingallegedbettingandmatchfix
ingduringthecricketmatches.ThereistheallegationsofHawalatransac
tionsarenotsupportedbyanyevidence.
102
Insofarasmoneylaunderingisconcerneditisthecaseofprose
cutionitselfthattheinvestigationsinthisregardinbeingcarriedoutbyen
forcement directorate. Therefore,theprosecutionhasnotbeenableto
evenshowaprimafaciecaseofoffenceofHawalabywayofillegalmoney
transactions beingconductedinanorganizedway interse theaccused
persons.
Abettors,ConspiratorsandFacilitators
103
LearnedspecialPP,onbehalfoftheStatehasarguedthatthepro
visionsofMCOCA,dealsnotonlywiththosewhoaredirectlyinvolvedin
thecommissionofoffence,butSection3(2)alsoincludesthosewhocon
spire,abetorknowinglyfacilitatethecommissionofanorganizedcrime.
ItwasarguedthatalltheaccusedpersonsbesidesDawoodIbrahimand
ChotaShakeelandDr.JavedChautani,weretheconspiratorsandabet
torsandwouldthus,becoveredundertheAct.
104
Inthecaseof RanjeetSingh (supra),itwasobservedthat
theexpressionabetdoesnotrefertothedefinitionofabetmentascon
64 of 175
tainedinSection107IPC.Itreferstosuchmeaningwhichcanbeattrib
uted toit in generalsense,withgrammaticalvariationsandcognateex
pressions.Theinclusivedefinitionofabetmentalthoughexpansiveinna
ture,includesthecommunicationorassociationwithanyperson
withtheactualknowledgeorhavingreasontobelievethatsuchper
sonisengagedinassistinginanymannertheorganizedcrimesyndi
cate.Itwasobservedthatanycommunicationorassociationwhichhasno
nexuswiththecommissionoforganizedcrime,wouldnotcomewithinthe
purviewthereof.Communicationtoorassociationwithanyperson
byitselfwouldnotcomewithinthemeaningofaforementionedprovision.It
wasfurtherexplainedthatcommunicationorassociationtoapersonmust
bywiththeactualknowledgeorhavingtobelievethatheisengagedin
assistingorganizedcrimesyndicate.Thus,theremustbeadirectnexus
withtheoffencecommittedbytheorganizedcrimesyndicate.Also,the
saidoffencemustbetheonecontemplatedbystatementofobjectsand
reasons.Furthermore,mensreaisanecessaryingredientforcommis
sionofacrimeunderMCOCA.
105
InSriRamvsStateofU.P.AIR1975SC175,theApexCourt
statedthattoconstituteabetment,theabettormustbeshowntohavein
tentionallyaidedthecommissionofthecrime.Mereproofthatthecrime
chargedcouldnothavebeencommittedwithouttheinvolvementoftheal
legedabettor,isnotenoughforcompliancewiththerequirementsofSec
tion107.
106
ThetermconspiracywasalsoconsideredinthecaseofRanjeet
SinghSingh(supra).Itwasnotedthattheexpression'conspiracy'is
notatermofart.Ithasdefiniteconnotation. SubbaRaoJ.inSardar
SurdulSinghCaveeshar vs. StateofMaharashtra AIR1965
65 of 175
SC682,observedthattheadmissibilityandevidentiaryvalueoftheevi
denceasbetweencoconspiratorsislimitedbytwocircumstancesnamely,
thattheactsmustbeinreferencetocommonintention,andinrespectof
aperiodaftersuchintentionwasentertainedbyanyoneofthem.Theex
pression,inreferencetotheircommonintentionisverycomprehen
siveanditappearstohavebeendesignedlyusedtogiveitawiderscope
thanthewordsinfurtheranceofasisinundatedintheEnglishlaw.As
aresultanythingsaid,doneorwrittenbyconspiratoraftertheconspiracy
wasformedwouldbeevidenceagainsttheother,beforeheenteredthe
fieldofconspiracyorafterheleftit.Theseobservationswerereliedupon
bytheApexCourtinthecaseofKeharSinghandAnr.v.State,AIR1988
SC1883.
107
InthecaseofT.K.Narayanv.StateofKerala,1995(1)SCC142
itwasstatedthattheingredientsofthisoffence(conspiracy)arethatthere
shouldbeanagreementbetweenthepersonswhoareallegedtoconspire
andthesaidagreementshouldbefordoingillegalactorfordoingbyil
legalmeanstheactwhichbyitselfwouldnotbeillegal.Thecircumstances
before, duringandafterthe occurrencehave tobeconsideredaboutthe
complicityoftheaccused.Ifthecircumstancesarecompatiblewiththein
nocenceoftheaccusedpersons,thenitcannotbeheldthattheprosecu
tionhassuccessfullyestablisheditscase.Evenifsuchactsareprovedto
havebeencommitted,itmustbeclearthattheyweresocommittedinpur
suanceofagreementmadebetweentheaccusedwhoarepartiestothe
allegedconspiracy.Inferencefromsuchprovedcircumstancesregarding
theguiltmaybedrawnonlywhensuchcircumstancesareincapableofany
otherexplanation.
66 of 175
108
Havinghighlightedtheaspectswhichneedtobeconsideredbefore
anypersoncanbeheldasanabettorfacilitatororconspirator,theindivid
ualrolesofeachaccusedneedstobeexaminedtoestablishprimafacieif
theyhadtherequisitemensreabywayofintentionorknowledgetobea
participantintheallegedactivitiesoftheOrganizedCrimeSyndicate.
AshwaniAggarwal@TinkuMandi
109
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstAshwaniAggarwal@Tinku
MandiisthathewasarrestedfromhishousefromAdarshNagar,Delhion
16May,2013pursuanttotheinterceptionthrough4mobilenumberswith
DubaiPakistanbasedunderworld.Onthebasisofcontentofintercepted
voicecalls,itwasconfirmedthatAshwaniAggarwalwasinvolvedinspot
fixing/sessionfixingactivitiesasamemberofunderworldsyndicate.In
theraidthatwasconductedon16May,2013itwasfoundthathewasrun
ningabettingexchangeand35mobilephones,6laptopsand1ipad,Idish
TVsetupbox,3internetcards,3wifirouters,1hpprinter,TVdecoder,I
TVdecoderofanothercompany,1LCDof40inches,handwrittendiaries
andpaperswererecovered.Itwasfoundthathehadobtainedalarge
numberofmobilephonenumbersbyimpersonatingidentitiesinorderto
runillegalexchangeandtoevadedetection.TheCDRsofmobilephones
usedbyaccusedshowhislinkswithvariousconduitsofunderworlddon
DawoodandChotaShakeel.Theinterceptedcallsalsoestablishhisnexus
withvariousbookies/fixersinIndiaandforeignaidsofDawoodandChota
Shakeel.Itwasfoundthathehadbeenpayingmoneythroughhenchmen
SunilBhatiatothecricketerAjitChandilaforspotfixing.Inanintercepted
call which wasbetween TinkuMandi@AshwaniAggarwalandJaved
Chautani,itwasfoundthatAshwaniwasencouragingJavedtouseVOIP,
internetcallingasitwasconsideredsafestmethodofcommunication.This
67 of 175
accusedwasalsofoundmentioningthathewasintouchwithPakistan
basedconduitofDawoodcalledSalman.Inanotherintcerceptedcallbe
tweenJavedChutaniandTinkuhewasfoundinformingDr.Javedabout
theTVprogrammeonZChannelwhichagainleavestodoubtabouthis
membershipwithcrimesyndicate.Thisclearlyestablisheshisnexuswith
organizedCrimesyndicate.
110
ThetraveldatesofTinkutoDubaicoupledwithhisdisclosure
statementestablishthathehadmetDr.JavedinRadissonHoteland
otherplaces.Ithasalsobeenfoundthatbookofentrieswerehaving
nameofChandreshJain@Jupitorwhohadalsofiguredinconversa
tionbetweenhimandDr.JavedChutani.Tinkuhasalsobeenfound
tobelinkedwithSanjayAggarwal@ChottaNagpur,aMegabookie
ofNagpurwhoissuspectedtobethefrontmanforinvestmentofille
gal wealth being generated bythis syndicate. Furthermore, coac
cusedRameshVyaswhoisalsoamemberofcrimesyndicateinhis
confessionalstatementunderSection18ofMCOCA,haddisclosed
thatAshwaniAggarwalwas theimportantmemberofcrimesyndi
cate.
111
LearnedcounselonbehalfofAshwaniAggarwalhasargued
thatmererecoveryof35mobilesandotherparaphernaliafromtheof
ficeofaccused,doesnotperseestablishcommissionofanyoffence
bytheaccused.Theengaginginbettinginagameofcricketwhichis
agameofskill,isanywaynotanoffenceunderSection12ofPublic
Gambling Act. The conversation betweenthisaccusedwithJaved
Chutanidonotmakehimamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicate.
Furthermore,forinvokingMCOCA,itisessentialthatthereshouldbe
2FIRsinthepreceding10yearswhichisnotthereinthecaseof
68 of 175
AshwaniAggarwal.NooffenceofMCOCAoranyotheractis,there
fore,madeoutagainsthim.
112
Theevidencce asproducedagainstthisaccused Ashwani
Aggarwalevenifacceptedonitsfacevaluewithoutanyproofshows
thathewasrunningabettinghousefromthepremisesinGurgaon.In
thisbusiness,hewasalsoclaimedtobeconnectedwithChandresh
Jain @ Jupiter, who is also claimed to be involved in the same
business.However,thereisnodirectconversationbetweenAshwani
AggarwalandChandreshJain,whosenamehasonlyfiguredinthe
conversationbetweenAshwaniandDr.JavedChautani.Thereisno
evidencewhatsoevertoshowthatAshwaniAggarwalwaslinkwith
Chandresh Jain or they were together working as members of a
Sydicatedealinginbetting.
113
TheprosecutionhassoughttoestablishthelinkofAshwani
Aggarwal to the allegedCoreCrime Syndicate ofDawoodChhota

ShakeelonthebasisofvariouscallinterceptsbetweenhimandDr.
JavedChautani.Thoughthereisnoevidencetoshowthatthemobile
numberattributedtoDr.JavedChautaniwasinfactinhisnamebut
evenifitisacceptedthatAshwaniAggarwalhadbeentalkingtoDr.
JavedChautanithentoothecallinterceptsmerelyshowthatonone
occasionhehadadvisedDr.JavedChautanitouseVOIPasitwas
69 of 175
moresafeandthathewasintouchwithoneSalman,claimedconduit
of Dawood. On another occasion, he has told Javed Chautani to
watchaZeeProgramme,whichwasbeingairedinregardtomatch
fixingandinvolvementofDawood.Theseconversationsatbestcan
leadtotheconclusionoftheirbeingfriendshipandanassociation
betweenAshwaniAggarwalandJavedChautanibutbynostretchof
interpretationcanitbesaidthatfromthesecallinterceptsitcanbe
inferredthatAshwaniAggarwalwasworkingasamemberofCore
Crime Syndicate to which he was linked to Javed Chautani. As
alreadydiscussedabove,thereisnoevidenceplacedonrecordby
prosecutiontoshowthatDr.JavedChautaniwasinanywayworking
forDawood andwas alinkbetweenthevariousbookiesandthe
CrimeSyndicateofDawood.
114
TheaccusedAshwaniisalsoshowntobelinkedtoSanjay
Aggarwal@ChhotaNagpuraasafaceforinvestingtheillegalwealth
that was being generated by this Syndicate. However, in depth
investigationscarriedoutbytheprosecutionhasnotbroughtforthany
evidencetoshowthattherewasanyillegalwealthofAshwani,which
wasinvestedinrealestateorotherwisebySanjayAggarwal.Alistof
propertiesandaccountsofAshwaniAggarwalhasbeenfiledbutnone
hasbeenshowntobeunaccounted.
70 of 175
115
Theentireevidenceoftheprosecutionsoughttobeledagainst
AshwaniAggarwal,evenifaccepteddoesnotprovidethenexuswith
theCoreCrimeSyndicate,whichistheprimaryrequirementforfram
ingachargeagainsthimforbeingamemberoftheorganizedCrime
Syndicate.NoprimafaciecaseunderMCOCAismadeoutagainst
theaccusedAshwaniAggarwal.
RamakantAggarwal
116
ThecaseofprosecutionagainstRamaKantisthathewasar
restedon16.05.2013attheinstanceofcoaccusedAshwaniAggar
wal from illegal bettingexchangeatGurgaon,Haryanaalongwith
threeaccusedAjayGoel,AmitGuptaandDipitGarg.The35mobile
phones hadbeenrecoveredfrom thesaidbettingexchange,the
analysisofwhichrevealtheywerecolocatedatRohinitill2.04.2013
andthereafter,weremovedtoGurgaonon03.04.2013.Theanaly
sisofcallsdisclosedthatexcepttwophones,allothermobileswere
eitherreceivingincomingcallsorbeingusedtomakingoutgoingcalls.
There were large numberofinternationalcalls andVOIPcalls on
thesenumbers.Onephonewaspermanentlyoncallforwardingi.e.
wasactingasfeederphonetoanother.RamakantAggarwalwasa
bookieandwasfoundworkingforbettingexchangeofAshwaniAg
garwalandwasamediatoramongstvariousbookiesincludingSanjay
Aggarwal. His presence at the betting exchange during IPL 6
matchesestablisheshisdeepinvolvementinspot/sessionfixingcase.
BettingbookswereseizedwhichwerebeingmaintainedbyRamakant
Aggarwal.Hewasalsofoundtohavebeenarrestedon28.12.2012
71 of 175
under MumbaiGamblingActvideFIRNo.3092/12andwasfound
wantedinanotherFIRnumber3032/13.
117
Itisarguedonbehalfofaccusedthattheonlyincriminatingevi
denceagainstthisaccusedisofmaintainingbooksofbettingandre
coveryofsims,besideshis presenceatbettingexchangebeingrun
byAshwani.Thereisnoevidencetolinkhimtocrimesyndicateand
thereforenooffenceismadeoutagainsthim.
118
The allegations that has been made against accused Ra
makantAggarwalbytheprosecutionisthathewasabookieandwas
foundworkingfromthebettingexchangeofAshwaniAggarwaland
wasamediatoramongstvariousbookiesincludingSanjayAggarwal.
Tocorroboratetheseallegationstheprosecutionhadrestedonhis
presenceatthebettingexchangeduringtheIPL6matchesandalso
thebettingbookiesthatwerebeingmaintainbyhim. Thebetting
bookiesmayshowthathewasindulginginthisactivitybutashasal
readybeenconsideredthisdoesnotqualifyasanoffenceunderPub
licGamblingActoranyotherlaw. Unfortunateasitmaybethat
thoughheisshowntobeabookie,butintheabsenceofanystatute
bringingsuchactintodomainofpenaloffence,nochargesagainst
himcanbeframedeitherofcheatingorunderPublicGamblingAct.
Further more presenceofRamakantAggarwalintheexchangeof
AshwaniAggarwalmaysurethathewasusingthefacilitiesestab
lishedbyAshwaniAggarwal,butthesecannotevenleadtodrawa
primafacieconclusionoftherebeinganynexusbetweenandAsh
waniAggarwalorwiththecorecrimesyndicate.Furtherinorderto
makehimamember,ithastobeshownthattherewasanexusofthis
72 of 175
accusedwiththecoresyndicateandthathewassoactingwiththe
requisite intention and knowledge. None of these ingredients are
madeoutfromtheentireprosecutionevidencethatisrelieduponby
them.
119
The allegations that has been made against accused
RamakantAggarwalbytheprosecutionisthathewasabookieand
wasfoundworkingfromthebettingexchangeofAshwaniAggarwal
and was a mediator amongst various bookies including Sanjay
Aggarwal.Tocorroboratetheseallegations,theprosecutionhadrelied
onhispresenceatthebettingexchangeduringtheIPL6matchesand
alsothebettingbooksthatwerebeingmaintainedbyhim.Thebetting
books may show that he was indulging in this activity, but as
considered later this does not qualify as an offence under Public
GamblingActoranyotherlaw.Unfortunateasitmaybethatthough
heisshowntobeabookie,butintheabsenceofanystatutebringing
suchactintodomainofpenaloffence,nochargesagainsthimcanbe
framedeitherofcheatingorunderPublicGamblingAct.
120
Further,presenceofRamakantAggarwalintheexchangeof
Ashwani Aggarwal may show that he was using the facilities

established by Ashwani Aggarwal, but this cannot even lead to a
prima facie conclusion of there being any nexus between and
AshwaniAggarwalorwiththecorecrimesyndicate.Further.inorder
tomakehimamember,ithastobeshownthattherewasanexusof
thisaccusedwiththecoresyndicateandthathewassoactingwith
therequisiteintentionandknowledge.Noneoftheseingredientsare
madeoutfromtheentireprosecutionevidencethatisrelieduponby
them.
73 of 175
3.AjayGoel,AmitGuptaandDipitGarg
121
Aspertheprosecution,theaccused AjayGoel,AmitGupta
andDipitGarg werearrestedon 15.05.2013fromB428,Sushant

Lok,Gurgaon,fromwherelargenumberofmobilephones,laptops
etc. were recovered. Accused No.2 Ajay Goel was found to be
maintainingthecompleterecordofIPL6spot/sessionfixingbetting
withthehelpofrecoveredlaptops.Thedisclosurestatementsofthe
threeaccusedwererecordedandtheirvoicesampleswereanalyzed
withtheconversationsontheinterceptedcalls.
122
It is argued onbehalf ofthesethreeaccusedthatnoneof
these disclosure statement of the accused were recorded under

Section18ofMCOCA.Therefore,theyareinadmissibleinevidence.
Insofaras theconfessionalstatementofaccusedno.1Ashwani
Aggarwalisconcerned,thesamehasbeenheldtobenonvoluntary
bytheLd.M.M.Inotherwords,accusedNo.1AshwaniAggarwaldid
not name any of these threeaccused. No recoveries have been
effectedfromthesethreeaccusedorattheirinstance.Thereisalso
no evidence to show thattheywerefoundgamblingorusingany
equipmentofgambling.Thelaptopsandmobilesthatwererecovered
fromSushantLok,Gurgaonwereallegedlyatthebehestofaccused
No.1AshwaniAggarwal.Therecoverieshadbeen effectedpriorto
the disclosure statements of accused No.2, 3 and 4. Moreover,
neithertheserecoveredlaptopshavenotbeenplacedonrecord,nor
anydocumentinregardtoanalysisoftheselaptopshasbeenfiled.
Thereisnorecordofspot/sessionfixingorbettingofIPL6andno
suchmaterialhasbeenrecoveredattheinstanceofaccusedno.2.
74 of 175
123
Further,noneofthenumberswhichwereanalyzedun
dertheheadAjayGoelbelongstohimexceptNo.9873477771.The
transcriptsoftheconversationattributedtoaccusedno.2to4donot
discloseanymatterwhichgoestothesubstratumoftheprosecution
case.Thereisnoreferencetoanysyndicateoranyconnectionwith
theplayersoftheIPL6. Furthermore,theseallegedtransactions
havebeenextractedfromoriginalrecordings.Thesupportingcertifi
cateunderSection65BoftheEvidenceActoftheInvestigatingOffi
cerdoesnotsatisfytherequirementofthesaidSectionandarethere
foreinadmissible. Theexpert'sreportofphoneanalysisisalsofar
fromconclusiveandinanycase,aweakpieceofevidence.Thereis
nootherevidenceagainstthesethreeaccused,whoareentitledtobe
discharged.
124
Theonlyallegationsagainstthesethreeaccusedarethatthey
werefoundintheofficeofAshwaniAggarwalinGurgaonandwere
foundtobemaintainingcompleterecordofIPL6Spot/SessionFixing
withthehelpofrecoveredlaptops.Theonlyevidenceagainstthemis
theconfessionalstatementofaccusedAshwaniAggarwal.However,
theonlyfactthat getsestablishedfromtheentireevidenceagainst
them that they were working on behalf of Ashwani Aggarwal for
maintainingbookpertainingtobetting.Thisisinitselfwithoutanything
more does not make them linkedwith theCrime Syndicateor an
abettororcoconspiratorinthisallegedorganizedcrimeofbetting.
Neitheranynexusnoranymensreaisevenprimafaciedisclosed
75 of 175
againstthesethreeaccusedofbeinginvolvedintheorganizedcrime
of betting. No charge is made out against them under any penal
statute.
SunilBhatia
125
ThecaseofprosecutionagainstSunilBhatiaisthathewasa
leadfixercumhenchmenofcrimesyndicate.Heactedforcoaccused
AshwaniAggarwalaliasTinkuandwasdirectlylinkedtoothercrickets
likeAjitChandilaandOthers.Inhisconfessionalstatement,hehad
disclosedaboutAjitChandelahavingreceivedalotofmoneyfrom
AshwaniAggarwalthroughHawalainIPL, 2012.Hehadalsodis
closedabouthavingvisitedresidenceofAjitChandelawhohadre
turnedthemoneybywayoftwochequesof4lakheach,sincehedid
notperformas agreed.Onechequeof4lakhswashowever,en
cashedanddebitedfromtheaccountofAjitChandalia.Further,state
mentsofwitnessSidharthTrivedialsocategoricallypindownroleof
SunilBhatiaforapproachingAjitChandaliaforspotfixing.Thestate
mentofwitnessVivekSinghshowsthathewasenticedbySunilBha
tia tojoin hissyndicateforspot/sessionfixingtoearnhandsome
amountsattheconclusionofIPL6matches.However,VivekSingh
declined. It is thus, submitted that the confessional statements of
Sunil Bhatia coupled with statements of two prosecution witness,
clearlyestablishhisroleashenchmanofAshishAggarwalandbeing
linkedtounderworldthroughAshwaniforundertakingtheactivitiesof
spotfixingandmatchfixingonbehalfofthesyndicate.
76 of 175
126
IthasbeenarguedonbehalfofSunilBhatiathatmainevi
denceagainsthimistheconfessionalstatementunderSection18,
butthe samehasbeenretractedbyhim.Further,twodishonoured
cheques of Ajit Chandilawhich were allegedly recovered from his
possessionpertaintoIPL2012andhadnoconnectionwithIPL2013
towhichpresentcasepertains.Furthermore,hehasbeenlinkedto
JavedChutaniwhohadtoldAjitChandilatoreturnthemoneytoSunil
Bhatia,butthereisnoconversationbetweenhimandJavedinthis
regard.TheinterceptedcallswithAshwaniAggarwalmerelydisclose
the activityofMatchfixingwhichcanatbestbecoveredunderthe
GamblingAct,butnoMCOCAcanbeinvokedsincethereisnoevi
dencetoshowthathewaslinkedwiththeorganizedcrimesyndicate.
127
ThecaseofprosecutionagainstSunilBhatiaisthathewas
leadfixercumhenchmenofcrimesyndicate.Heactedforcoaccused
AshwaniAggarwalaliasTinkuandwasdirectlylinkedtoothercrickets
likeAjitChandilaandOthers.Inhisconfessionalstatementhehad
disclosedaboutAjitChandelahavingreceivedalotofmoneyfrom
Ashwani Aggarwal throughHawalainIPL2012.Hehadalsodis
closedabouthavingvisitedresidenceofAjitChandelawhohadre
turnedthemoneybywayoftwochequesof4lakheach,sincehedid
notperformas agreed.Onechequeof4lakhswashowever,en
cashedanddebitedfromtheaccountofAjitChandalia.Further,state
mentsofwitnessSidharthTrivedialsocategoricallypinneddownrole
of Sunil Bhatia forapproachingAjitChandaliaforspotfixing.The
statementofwitnessVivekSinghshowsthathewasenticedbySunil
Bhatiatojoinhissyndicateforspot/sessionfixingtoearnhandsome
amountsattheconclusionofIPL6matches.However,VivekSingh
declined. It is thus submittedthatthe confessional statementsof
77 of 175
Sunil Bhatia coupled with statements of two prosecution witness,

clearlyestablishhisroleashenchmanofAshishAggarwalandbeing
linkedtounderworldthroughAshwaniforundertakingtheactivitiesof
spotfixingandmatchfixingonbehalfofthesyndicate.
128
IthasbeenarguedonbehalfofSunilBhatiathatmainevi
denceagainsthimistheconfessionalstatementunderSection18,
butthe samehasbeenretractedbyhim.Further,twodishonoured
chequesofAjeetChandilawhichwereallegedlyrecoveredfromhis
possessionpertaintoIPL12andhadnoconnectionwithIPL13to
which present case pertains. Furthermore, he has been linked to
JavedChutaniwhohadtoldAjeetChandilatoreturnthemoneyto
SunilBhatia,butthereisnoconversationbetweenhimandJavedin
thisregard.TheinterceptedcallswithAshwaniAggarwalmerelydis
closestheactivityofMatchfixingwhichcanatbestbecoveredunder
thegamblingact,butnoMCOCAcanbeinvokedsincethereisnoev
idencetoshowthathewaslinkedwiththeorganizedcrimesyndicate.
KiranDhole
129
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedKiranDholewho
wasarrestedon19.05.2013fromAurangabad,Maharashtraisthatin
March, 2013 he along with associate Sunil Bhatia had met Ajit
ChandilaandAnkitChavhaninDelhi,alongwithAshwaniAggarwal
@Tinkuforspot/sessionmatchfixing.TheinvolvementofKiranDole
hasbeenconfirmedbytheaccusedSunilBhatia,hisconfessional
statementsunder Section18ofMCOCAandfromthestatementof
witnessVivekunderSection164Cr.P.C.Thecalldetailsofaccused
Kiran Dole also disclose that he was closely linked with cricketer
78 of 175
ManishGudewar,SunilBhatia,AshwaniAggarwalandAjitChandila.
130
TheallegationoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedKiranDole
arethathehadmetAjitChndilaandAnkitChavhan,thetwoplayers
alongwithSunilBhatiaandAshwaniAggarwal. Merelymeetingor
knowingSunilBhatiaandAshwaniAggarwalinitselfcannotleadto
anyinferencethattheirassociationandfriendshipormeetingwithAjit
and Ankit was with the sole objectiveof fixing for matches. The
conversation dated 10.05.2013 between Ajit Chandila and Kiran
Dhole is an innocuous conversation about Ajit Chandila going to
JaipurandofKiranDolemeetinghimon14.05.2013. Thesecond
transcriptdated15.04.2013isbetweenKiranDoleandSunilBhatia
aboutsometeamwhichwaswinningandSunilinformingthatVivek
wasgoingtoJaipurwheretheywouldhaveaholidayonthenextday
andpracticewouldcommencefrom16thandalsoabouthavinga
party. Thethirdconversationdated23.04.2013betweenKiranDole
andSunilBhatiaisaboutKiranDolewhereinKiranDolehasbeen
tellingSunilBhatiathathehasbeencoercingAjitChandilatomeet
AshwaniAggarwalandalsoabouthavingapartyinwhichAjit,Ankit,
Sidharth,Badrit,Edwart,Badiyawouldbeinvitedandthereisalsoa
mentionofCooperwhomayalsobeinvitedandaboutSunilBhatia
inviting themandthaton25.04.2013theywouldbeinDelhianda
roomhasbeenfixedformeetingandhewouldnotbeabletoavoid
talking.
131
The prosecution has relied only on one intercepted call
betweenAjitChandilaandKiranDole whichonlyshowsthatKiran
DoleknowsAjitChandila. Theotherconversationsonlyshowthat
79 of 175
KiranDholehadtriedtoprevailuponAjitChandilatomeetAshwani
AggarwalandhadtriedtofixameetinginDelhi.MerelyknowingAjit
ChandilaandpersuadinghimtomeetAshwaniAggarwalinDelhican
onlyleadtotheinference ofKiranDoleknowingAjitChandilaand
also compelling him to meet Ashwani Aggarwal, but beyond
introducingAjit,Ashwanithereisnoevidencetoshowthathewas
involvedinanymannerofallegedmatchfixing.Italsodoesnotshow
thatKiranDolewasawareoftheactivitiesofAshwaniAggarwalin
matchfixingorhadthenecessaryknowledgethatAshwaniAggarwal
waspartoftheorganizedbettingandmatchfixingorthatorganized
activitywasbeingundertakenbyAshwaniAggarwalaspartofthe
organizedcrimesyndicate. NoprimafaciecaseunderMCOCAis
madeout.
ManishGuddewar
132
ManishGuddewarwasarrestedbythepoliceon19.05.2013at
Aurangabad, Maharashtra along with his other associates Sunil

BhatiaandKiranDhole.Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthathewasa
personwhointroducedAjitChandilatoaccusedKiranDoleformatch
fixing. Atthetimeofhisarrest,onemobilephonewasrecovered.
ThestatementofcricketcoachofNaharSinghStadium,Faridabad,
namely Raj Kumar Sharma and Krishan Kumar also prove that
accused Manish Guddewar along with Amit KumarSinghandAjit
Chandila,usedtopracticetogetherinthestadium.Thisindicatesthe
longassociationandintimacywitheachother.
133
Theonlyallegationthathasbeenmadebytheprosecution
againstaccusedManishGadewaristhathewastheclosefriendof
80 of 175
Amit Kumar Singh and Ajit Chandila. It is alleged that he had

introducedAjitChandilatoaccusedKiranDole,butthereisnocogent
evidence in this regard. Even if the case of the prosecution is
acceptedthatAjitChandilawasintroducedtoKiranDolebyManish
Guddewar,thentoonoinferencewhatsoevercanbedrawnthatsuch
introductionwasforthepurposeofmatchfixing.Thereisnotaniota
of evidence to show thatManishGuddewarwasawarethatKiran
Dhole was an intermediary for introducing the cricket players to
AshwaniAggarwal,theallegedbookie.Alltheseaspectsarepurely
conjuncturalandtheonlyevidencethattheprosecutionhasbeenable
to collect by virtue of the statements of the cricket coaches is in
regardtothecloseassociationbetweenAmitKumarSinghandAjit
CandilaandwiththisaccusedManishGuddewar. Merelybeinga
friendcannotbetermedasanoffenceeitherunderMCOCAorunder
anyotherpenalstatuteespeciallyintheabsenceofanyevidenceto
showthathewasawarethatsuchactivitieswerebeingundertakes
andonbehalfofcrimesyndicateofDawoodChhotaShakeel. No
primafaciecaseisdisclosedagainstheaccusedManishGuddewar
underMCOCA.
SanjayAgrawal
134
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthatthearrestandsubsequent
interrogationofaccusedAshwaniAggarwalrevealedthattheaccused
Sanjay Aggarwal @ Chota Nagpur was an important member of
syndicate. He isa majorbookiewhoownsamasteraccounton
www.betfair.com,anonlinebettingsiteregisteredinU.KandAustralia.
Thisaccountwashousedtofunnelhugeamountsofillegalwealth
earned through betting on performance which were fixed by the
81 of 175
syndicate. FurtherRamakantGondiawhowasarrestedalongwith
accusedAshwaniAggarwalhadrevealedthathewasabookkeeper
foraccusedSanjayAggarwalunderthepatronageofTinku@Mandi.
135
Ld.Counselonbehalfofaccusedno.35SanjayAgrawalhas
arguedthatthenameofthisaccusedcameintopictureonlyafterthe
arrest of accused No.1 Ashwani Aggarwal, who during his
interrogationrevealedthatSanjayAgrawalwasanimportantmember
ofthesyndicatethatwasinvolvedinspot/sessionfixingandillegal
betting. It was further revealed by Ashwani Aggarwal that this
accused owns a master account on www.betfair.com an on line
bettingsiteregisteredinU.KandAustraliatofunnelhugeamountsof
illegal wealth earned throughbettingonperformanceswhich were
fixedbythebookies.
136
The other incriminating evidence alleged against these
accused is the intercepted conversation between accused no.1

AshwaniAggarwalandthisaccusedwhichtookplaceon08.05.2013,
12.05.2013,14.05.2013andalsowiththecoaccusedon29.07.2013
and31.07.2013. ThepresentaccusedsurrenderedbeforetheCourt
on11.12.2013.Thereafterasupplementarychargesheetagainsthim
wasfiledon16.05.2014.
137
ItisarguedonbehalfoftheaccusedSanjayAggarwalthatin
ordertoprovethathewasamemberofOrganizedCrimeSyndicate,
theprosecutionhasheavilyreliedupon acharttoportraythatthis
accused was directly connected with accused No.33 Salman @
MasterwhoisallegedtoberesidentofLahore,Pakistanandanaidof
82 of 175
underworldDonDawoodIbrahimaccusedno.30herein. However,
thereisnotasingledocumenttoestablishadirectlinkbetweenthis
accused and accused Salman. Despite putting all the cell phone
numberofSalmanandthepresentaccusedonsurveillanceformore
than two months, not even a single intercepted communication
betweenthemcouldbedetectedbytheprosecutionwhichestablishes
thatthereisabsolutelynoconnection,nexusorcommunicationofany
kind between the presentaccusedandSalman. Insofarasthe
intercepted communications between the present accused and
accused no.1 Ashwani Aggarwal are concerned, even if all these
communicationsareacceptedontheirfacevalue,thentoononexus
or link between the present accused and the Organized Crime
Syndicatecanbeestablished.
138
Furthermore,eveniftheaccusedAshwaniAggarwalandhis
aideandothercoaccusedareacceptedtobemembersoforganized
crimesyndicate,thentoo,thereisnoevidencetoshowthataccused
SanjayAggarwalwashavinganyknowledgeaboutthembeingmem
bersoforganizedcrimesyndicate.Thiscanalsonotbeconcluded
fromthecommunicationandassociationbetweenAshwaniAggarwal,
his aide Rammakant (Accused No.5) and Sunil Bhatia (Accused
No.17)andChandreshPatel@ Jupiter(Accused16).Evenother
wise,theinterceptedcommunicationswereafterthecommissionof
allegedoffenceofspot/sessionsfixingi.e5.5.2013.
139
ItwasfurtherarguedthatevenSection4ofMCOCA,concern
ingthepossessionofunaccountablewealthisnotmadeout.Even
83 of 175
thoughtheprosecutionhasprovidedthelistofpropertiespurchased
bypresentaccusedduring2001to2013,butinthechargesheetitself
thevarioussourcesofincome,includingpropertybuilding,construc
tion, rent etc. has been disclosed by the prosecution itself. Also,
nowhere in the chargesheethas theprosecution claimed that all
thesepropertiesareunaccountablewealth.Muchless,noevidenceto
thateffecthasbeenproducedonrecord.Thisclearlyshowsthatall
thepropertieslistedthereinarenotaccountablewealthasthesameis
dulyaccountedbeforethecompetentauthorities.Itissubmittedthat
accused Sanjay Aggarwal does not possess even a single unac
countedpropertyorwealth.
140
Itisfurtherarguedthat Section14oftheIndianTelegraph
Act,providestheauthorizationtotheInvestigatingAgencyforinter
ceptionofwire,oralorelectriccommunicationforwhichtheSuperin
tendentofPolicethecompetentauthority.Theprosecutionhasrelied
onvariousoriginalinterceptedoralcommunicationbetweentheco
accusedwhichimpliesthatnecessarypermissionunderSection14
musthavebeenobtained.However,thedateonwhichthepermission
wastakenhasnotbeendisclosed.Further,SubSection8ofSection
14enumeratesthatnoorderunderthisSectionauthorizingintercep
tionofanywired,electronicororalcommunicationshallbeforape
riodlongerthan60days.The60daysperiodshallbeginimmediately
precedingonthedaythelawenforcementofficer,firstbeginstocon
ducttheinterceptionundertheorderor10daysaftertheorderisis
sued,whicheverisearlier.Fromtheperusalofthechargesheet,itis
apparentthatinterceptionoforalcommunicationstartedon8May,
84 of 175
2013.InviewofSection14,theorderwouldhavenecessarilyculmi
natedon7.7.13.However,theprosecutionhasinterceptedoralcom
munication till 31.7.13 which clearly means police authorities ex
ceededtheauthorizationofinterceptiongivenbythecompetentau
thorities.
142
Itisfurtherarguedthattheprosecutionhasreliedonvoluntary
confessionalstatementsunderSection18ofMCOCAthathadbeen
madebyalmostalltheaccused. However,therearestringentre
quirements provided underSection18toensurethatconfessional
statementsmadebyaccusedisvoluntary.Howeverduringtheratifi
cationoftheallegedconfessionalstatement,thedutyM.Mvideofhis
orderdated23.12.2013categoricallyheldthattheconfessionalstate
mentgivenbythisaccusedSanjayAggarwalwasnotvoluntary.Even
otherwise,intheallegedvoluntaryconfessionalstatement,thisac
cusedhasspecificallystatedthathedidnotknowanythingaboutal
legedcrime.
143
Further,eveniftheallegationsmadeinthechargesheetare
takenontheirfacevalue,thentoonooffenceunderSection420IPC
ismadeoutagainstthisaccused.Thereisnotaniotaofmaterialor
evenawhisperthataccusedSanjayAggarwaleveradmittedtoinflu
encetheplayersorganizersetc.soastoinfluencetheresultofmatch
onewayorother.Nonexusbetweenthefixers,cricketersandthisac
cusedhasbeenestablished.Therefore,nooffenceunderSection419
and420IPCisprimafacieestablishedagainsttheaccused.
85 of 175
144
Itisarguedthatthepresentaccusedhasbeenroppedinon
thebasisofthestatementofaccusedno.1byAshwaniAggarwal,
wherein,hestatedthataccusedSanjayAggarwalwasamajorbookie
whoownsamasteraccountonwww.betfair.com,anonlinebetting
siteregisteredinU.KandAustralia.Thesaiddisclosurestatementof
coaccusedAshwaniAggarwalandevenoftheaccusedhimselfbe
forethepoliceauthority,isinadmissibleinevidenceandnochargeon
thebasisofthesestatementscanbeframedagainsttheaccused.
145
Similarly,theoffenceofconspiracyunder Section120BIPC
requirescommonintentionwhichisagainnotestablishedfromthe
materialonrecord.Noincriminatingarticlehasbeenseizedfromhis
possession.Thereisalsonocircumstantialevidencetoprimafacie
establishthat SanjayAggarwalwasinvolvedwithspotfixing/match
fixinginfurtheranceofcommonintentionwiththeotheraccused.Itis
thus,arguedthatnooffencewhatsoeverismadeoutagainstaccused
SanjayAggarwal.
146
TheentireevidenceoftheprosecutionistoshowthatSanjay
AggarwalwashavingRamakantasabookkeeperandthathewasin
spotfixingandillegalbetting.Further,hewasclaimedtobedirectly
connectionwithaccusednumber33,Salman@masterallegedaideof
underworlddonDawoodIbrahim.However,thereisnotasinglelink
toshowbetweenhimandSalman.Hemaybeinvolvedinspotfixing
andmayhaveassociationwithAshwaniAggarwal,butwhenAshwani
AggarwalhimselfisnotshowtobelinkedtoDawood,ChotaShakeel,
86 of 175
throughJavedChautanithen,thereisnootherevidencetolinkhimto
thecoresyndicate.
147
Itwasalsoallegedthathewasafaceforutilizinganinvest
mentofillegalmoneywhichwasbeingallegedlygeneratedthrough
betting. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate
theseallegations.ThepropertydetailsofSanjayAggarwalalsodid
notshowthathewasafaceforlegalizingthebetmoney.
148
IthasbeenrightlyarguedonbehalfoftheaccusedSanjayAg
garwalthattherequisitenexusorlinkwiththecoresyndicatehasnot
beenestablished.Also,thereisnoevidencewhatsoever,toshowthat
he had any association orcommunication with Javed, Dawoodor
Shakeelorthatthereexistedanymensreatobepartofthecrime
syndicate.Noassociationorcommunicationofthisaccusedwiththe
coresyndicateisbroughtforthandtherefore,heisnotshowntobean
abettororconspiratorofcorecrimesyndicate.
JitenderKumarJain
149
AccusedJitenderKumarJain@JituTharadwasapprehended
fromAhmedabad,Gujaraton27.06.2013.Duringtheinvestigationsit
wasestablishedthathewasthechieffinancerforAhmedabad,Gu
jaratbasedsyndicatedinvolvedinspot/sessionfixing.Investigations
revealedthathisassistants/associatesChandreshPatel,MannanU.
BhattandAmitKumarSinghwereactingonhisdirectionandwerein
ducingplayersAjitChandila,AnkitChavhan,S.Sreesantforspot/ses
sionfixing,whilehehimselfalwaysremainedinthebackgroundto
87 of 175
controltheiractivities. Hehimselfhasbeenfoundinfilteratingother
teamparticipatinginIPLthroughhiscolleagueAmitresidentofHyder
abadandhisassociatesnamelyBabuSunilChanderSaxena,Syed
DurreyAhmedandMohd.Yahiya@Yusuf.HehadvisitedChennai
tofixplayersofanotherteamparticipatinginIPL,whichiscorrobo
rated byhiscalldetailsandthoseofalltheabovenamedaccused
persons.
150
Inthecalldetailsdated15.05.2013accusedChandreshPatel
confirmedtoaccusedJitenderKumarJainthathewassuccessfulin
fixingAnkitChavhanfordeliveringapredeterminedperformancein
theupcoming match.Intwodifferentcalldetailsdated15.05.2013
accusedAmitKumarSinghwasfoundactingincomplianceofthedi
rectiongivenbyaccusedJitenderKumarJaininfixingAnkitChavhan
aswellasS.Sreesanthforgivingaspecificperformance.Thecrick
eterHarmeetSinghinhisstatementunderSection164Cr.P.Chas
alsodisclosedthehighlevelinvolvementofaccusedJitenderKumar
Jaininthissyndicate.ItwasdisclosedbyhimthatinthemidJune,
2013afterhewassignedwithRajasthanRoyals,Ajitmethimafter
thematchandinvitedhimfordinnerataHotel,wherehealsoinvited
Hitesh.TherehetookhimtooneroomtomeetMannanU.Bhattand
Jitender.Theyweretalkingaboutspot/sessionfixing.
151
ItwasclaimedthataccusedJitenderKumarJainissuspected
tobelinkedwiththeunderworldsyndicateofDawoodIbrahimand
ChottaShakeelthroughDr.JavedChutaniatMumbai.Anintercepted
callbetweenJavedChutaniandAshwaniAggarwalisfoundmention
ingthatJeetuwouldusetheconferencelineofChutaniforconnecting
withTinku@Mandi'sexchangeandthatJitenderKumarJainhad
88 of 175
alsoworkedforJavedChutaniinthepaston23occasions. The
primafacielinkofaccusedJitenderKumarJainwithunderworldsyn
dicatehasthus,beenestablished.Further,JitenderKumarJainhas
admittedhisguiltinthisconfessionunderSection18oftheAct.
152
Ld.Counselonbehalfofaccusedhasarguedthathehadre
tractedhisconfessionbeforetheMagistrate. Thedisclosurestate
mentmadetothepolicearehitbySection27andarenotadmissible.
Furthermore, thetelephonicconversationsarenotsupportedwith
thecertificate underSection65BofIndianEvidenceActandcan,
therefore,notbereadinevidence.Furthermore,thecontract,ifat
all,betweentheaccusedandtheplayerswasasabookieandhewas
not answerable to the public. Further more, he has never been
bookedearlierforanycrimeand,therefore,MCOCAisnotattracted.
153
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthathewasabookieandachief
financer,whohadbeenworkingwithhisassociatesChandreshPatel,
MannanU.BhattandAmitKumarSinghforfixingtheplayers.The
conversationsbetweenhimandChandreshPatelandhiscallwith
AmitKumarSinghhavebeenreliedtoshowthathehadinfact,ar
rangedforfixingS.SreesanthandAnkitChavhan.
154
InsofarasS.Sreesanthisconcerned,itisthecaseofthe
prosecutionitselfthattheS.Sreesantdidnotperformedasperthear
rangementashedidnotconcede14runs.Evenifitisacceptedthat
hewasabookiewhohadbeenapproachingtheplayersthroughhis
associates,butthebigquestioniswhatistheoffencethatismade
out.ThiswouldnotamounttoanoffenceofcheatingunderIPC.The
Public Gambling Act is not applicable to the game of skill which
89 of 175
cricketisand,therefore,nooffenceprimafacieismadeoutagainst
theaccused.
155
InsofarasMCOCA,isconcerned,theprosecutionhasrelied
upontheallegedtelephoniccallbetweenJavedChutaniandAshwani
AggarwalwhereintheyweretalkingaboutaccusedJitenderKumar
Jainbeinginthisbusinessandhavingworkedforhiminthepaston
23occasions.Asalreadydiscussedabove,Dr.JavedChutanihas
notbeenshowntobehavinganylinkwithDawoodIbrahimorasa
partoftheircrimesyndicate.Further,thereisnodirectcommunica
tionbetweenDr.JavedChutaniandJitenderKumarJain.Thebest
conclusionthatcanbedrawnfromthisallegedconversationbetween
Dr.JavedChutaniandAshwaniAggarwalisthatJitenderKumarJain
isalsoabookieandhadbeenassociatedwithDr.JavedChutaniin
thepast.ThisconversationonlyshowsthataccusedJitenderKumar
JainhadbeenassociatedwithDr.JavedChutani,whileAshwaniAg
garwalwasabookiewhohadalsoapproachedDr.JavedChtani.
ThereisnotaniotaofevidencetoshowthataccusedJitenderKumar
Jainwasworkingaspartofthecrimesyndicateorthathisassocia
tionsorcommunicationwithDr.JavedChutaniwaswiththeknowl
edgethathewasworkingaspartoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.In
fact,thereisabsolutelynoevidenceinthisregard.Furthermore,as
alreadydiscussedabove,theprimaryrequirementforevenprimafa
cieestablishinganorganizedcrimesyndicatehasnotbeenmetby
theprosecution. Consequently,nooffenceismadeoutagainstthe
accusedJitenderKumarJain.
ChandreshJain@Jupiter
156
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthatinitiallytheinterceptedcalls
90 of 175
revealed that one Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter resident of Jaipur,

RajasthanwasdirectlyintouchwithunderworldconduitsSalman@
MasterandDr.JavedChutani.TheaccusedAshwaniAggarwalhad
alsorevealedthatChandreshJainwasaprominentmemberanda
megabookie/fixer. IntheinterceptedcallsbetweenRameshVyas
andSalman,thenameofaccusedChandreshJainhadbeenfigured
asanimportantactorofthissyndicate.Theseinterceptedcallswere
regardingtherestructuringofcreditlimitavailabletobetting/Hawala
operators.ThestatureofJupitorinthissyndicatebecameclearfrom
theconfessionalstatementofaccusedRameshVyaswhorevealed
thatitwasJupitorwhohadintroducedhimtoDr.JavedChutaniand
had facilitated the entry of Ramesh Vyas into the syndicate.
Thereafter,withtheapprovalofDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel,
RameshVyashadgraduallytakenovertheturfbelongingtoaccused
Feroz.
157
IthasbeenarguedonbehalfofaccusedChandreshJainthat
intheconversationsthathavebeen reliedbytheprosecution,the
name of Jupiter had featured. The accused Chandresh Jain is
claimed to be the said person on the basis of the confessional
statement made by coaccusedRameshVyaswhoasserted that
ChandreshJainwasinfactJupiter. Itwasarguedthatthereisno
incriminatingevidencetoshowthatChandreshJainwaspartofcrime
syndicate.Theallegationsthatcanbebestsustainedagainsthimare
ofbeingabookieandrunningabettinghouse,butthatisanoffence
punishablewiththreemonthsofimprisonment. Itisnotanoffence
envisagedunderMCOCAand,therefore,nocaseismadeoutagainst
theaccused.
91 of 175
158
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstChandreshJainrestson
one telephonic conversation between Salman @ Master through

mobile no.9232187803 with Ramesh Vyas on his mobile
no.996770626on12.04.2013.Theentireconversationallegedlyheld
between Salman@MasterandRameshVyasonlydisclosedthat
Ramesh Vyas had approached one Jupiter for his work and had
requestedSalman@MastertomakeJupiterunderstandthattheyall
have to work together. The other piece of evidence is the
confessionalstatementofRameshVyaswhereinhehaddisclosed
thathecametoknowthatChandreshJain@Jupiterwasaverybig
bookieinvolvedincricketmatchandsessionfixing.OneFeroztook
overthebookingbusinessofMumbaiandPakistanafterthedeathof
hisleaderZahid@ChotteMiyanandhehadbeendoingthebusiness
throughJupiter. ConsequentlyRameshVyashadalsoapproached
Chandresh Jain @ Jupiter for his work to which Chandresh Jain
agreed.
159
TheentireevidenceagainstChandreshJainisbyvirtueofone
phonecallbetweenRameshandSalmanwhereinhehadrequested
SalmantotalktoJupitertodothework.Inhisconfessionalstatement
RameshVyashaddisclosedhavingcometoknowthatChandresh
JainwasamegabookieandaccusedFiroz,abookieofMumbaiwas
alsooperating.HealsoapproachedJupiter@ChandreshJainforhis
business.
160
This confessional statement and the conversation merely
indicatedthatChandreshJain@Jupiterwasknowntobeamajor
92 of 175
bookie. However,thereisnotaniotaofevidencecollectedbythe
prosecutiontoshowtheactualoperationsofChandreshJainfrom
whereitcouldbeevenprimafacieestablishedthathewasinfacta
megabookie.MereclaimbyRameshVyaswithouttherebeingany
othercogentevidence,cannotbesufficienttoholdChandreshJain@
Jupitertobeamajorbookie.Also,thereisnophonecallsbetween
ChandreshJainandSalmanoranyotherpersonoftheunderworld
fromwhereitcouldbeevenprimafacieconcludedthatChandresh
Jainwasintouchwithanymemberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate,
beitDr.JavedChutani,ChottaShakeelorDawoodIbrahim.Rather,
this name has featured in one call between Ramesh Vyas and
Salman,butthereisnoevidencetoshowthatSalmanwasamember
ofthecrimesyndicateofDawoodChhotaShakeel.Theonlyinference
thatcanbedrawnfromtheevidenceonrecordisthattheaccused
RamVyashadindependentlyapproachedJupiterforhisbusiness.
This, in itself does not make Chandresh Jain linked to the crime
syndicateorguiltyofanyoffenceunderanyoftheprovisionsofpenal
statute.NoprimafaciecaseismadeoutagainstaccusedChandresh
Jain.
AmitKumarSingh
161
WrittenargumentshavebeensubmittedbyAccusedno.9Amit
KumarSinghwhereinitissubmittedthataspertheprosecution,ac
cusedAmitKumarSinghintroducedoneofthecoaccusedMananU.
BhattwithcricketerAjitChandilawiththemotiveofinvolvinghimin
spotfixing.Theallegedcalldetailrecordsofhisproveshislinkwith
93 of 175
theotheraccusedChandreshPatel,P.JijuJanardanan,AjitChandila
andJitenderKumarJain.ItisassertedthatAmitKumarSinghwasa
player/fixer who was allegedlyintroducingothercricketerswiththe
helpofbookiesforspot/sessionfixingandwasfoundvisitingJaipur,
Kolkata,Mumbai,alongwithaforementionedaccusedpersons.Wit
nessSiddharthKumarTrivediinhisstatementunder164Cr.P.cstated
thatafterIPLgotoverintheyear2010,accusedAmitKumarSingh
hadintroducedhimtooneTomyinAhmedabadandheagreedfor
spotfixingandacceptedRs.1,00,000fromTomythroughAmitKumr
Singh,butbecausehewasunabletoperforminIPL2011,hevolun
tarilyreturnedtheamounttoTomythroughthisaccused.Further,itis
allegedbytheprosecutionthat3mobilephoneswererecoveredfrom
thepossessionofaccusedAmitKumarandtherearefourtelephonic
conversations with Jiju Janardanan, Jitender Kumar Jain and Ajit
Chandila etc. There are also three disclosure statements dated
16.05.2013, 19.05.2013and20.05.2013,buthehasnotmadeany
confessionalstatement.
162
Itisarguedthatfromtheevidencethathasbeenplacedbythe
prosecutioninthechargesheet,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthat
hewasworkingfororganizedcrimesyndicate.Theallegedtelephonic
conversationarealsowiththeplayersandnotwiththecoremembers
94 of 175
oftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.Furthermore,thereisnomoneyre
coveredfromtheaccusedatanypointoftimeandthereisnodocu
mentaryevidencetoshowthathewasinvolvedinmoneytransactions
inanymanner. StatementofwitnessSiddharthTrivediunder164
Cr.P.C claims of transaction of 1,00,000 but the said money was
neverrecovered.Moreover,whywouldtheaccusedtakeRs.1lac,
oncetheIPL2010wasoverandnomatchwastobeplayedin2010.
FurtherthisTommyhasneitherbeeninvestigatednorarrestednorhis
identityisestablished.Itisthus,arguedthatthereisnonexusestab
lishedbetweenthisaccusedandtheotheraccusedpersonstoshow
thatheisamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicateandthus,heisenti
tledtobedischarged.
163
ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatAmitKumarSinghwasa
player/fixer,whowasknowntoP.JijuJanardhan,AjitChandilaandJi
tenderKumarJainandhadbeenvisitingwiththesepersonsvarious
States,whereIPLmatcheswerebeingplayed. Itwasalsoclaimed
that he had approached the witness Sidharath Kumar Trivedi, a
cricketplayerafterIPLmatchgotoverintheyear2010andoffered
himmoneyforspotfixing.Thisentireevidenceevenifacceptedonly
showsthathewasafixerandhadbeenapproachingvariouscricket
playersalongwithotheraccusedtoinducehimtoagreetospotfixing.
ThisdoesnotestablishanylinkbetweenhimandtheCoreSyndicate.
HeisnotshowntobeamemberofCoreCrimeSyndicate.Hemaybe
oneofthemany,whohadbeenindependentlyindulginginspotfixing
95 of 175
ofplayersalongwithothercoaccusedbutthatisnotsufficientto
makehimapartofCoreCrimeSyndicate.Hisactivityofattemptingto
spotfixdoesnotcomewithintheambitofcheating,asisdiscussed
later.Theentireevidenceofprosecutionevenifadmittedatthisstage,
withoutanyproof,doesnotdiscloseanyprimafaciecaseunderany
lawagainsttheaccused.
ChandreshPatel
164
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedChandreshPatel
is that he was arrestedon16.05.2013from Mumbaialongwithsix

othercoaccusedpersons.Atthetimeofarrest34 mobilephones
wererecoveredfromhim.Itwasfoundthatonemobilephonehad
beenobtainedfraudulentlybyhimonotherperson'sidentity.
165
Duringtheinvestigation,itwasrevealedthathehadvisited
Kolkata,Mumbai,Jaipur,PuneandMohaliforfixingtheirspot/session
fixing.HehadstayedwithcoaccusedAmitKumar,MananUBhatt,
SunilBhatia,KiranDholeandothersathotelRoyalOrkitinJaipur.He
hadalsostayedatHotelMarriot,JaipurinAprilMay,2013.Ithas
beenfoundthathehadgiftedtwowatchestoAjitChandila.Theinter
ceptedcallsbetweenhimandabookieshowthathewashavingfull
controloverAjitChandilaandSreesanth.Ithasbeenfurtherrevealed
thathehadvisitedSriLankaalongwithJitenderJainandPraveenfor
fixingtheplayersthere.TheconfessionalstatementofaccusedJiten
derJainu/s8MCOCAalsoprovesthesame.Theanalysisofmobile
96 of 175
phone recovered from his possession has revealed that he was

deeplyinvolvedintheactivityofthecrimesyndicateandwasfound
operatingonlinebettingactions,bothlocalaswellasoffshore,in
hawalatransactionandalsoparticipatinginfixingtheplayers.
166
Ld.Counselonbehalfoftheaccusedhasarguedthat
thereisnodocumenttoshowthathehadobtainedthemobilephone
onfakeidentity.Evenifitisacceptedthathewasfixingtheplayers,
buttheevidenceonrecordclearlyshowsthatthefixedoversnever
materialized. Further, the requirement for invoking MCOCA is two
FIRsinthepreceding10yearswhichisadmittedlynotsatisfiedinthe
caseofthisaccused.Itistherefore,arguedthatnooffenceisprima
faciemadeoutagainsttheaccused.
167
Theentireevidencecollectedbytheprosecutiontotheeffect
thatChandreshPatelwasfriendlywiththecoaccusedAmitKumar,
MananU.Bhatt,SunilBhatia,KiranDholeandhadbeenmeeting
theminhotels.Hehadalsobeenvisitingvariousplacesallegedlyfor
purposeofspotandsessionfixing.Merelybeingfriendswithotherco
accusedandvisitingplaceswiththemcannotleadtoanyconclusion
thatthesamewasforthepurposeofmatchfixing.Likewise,giving
giftstotheplayersorbeingclosetocoaccusedAjitChandilaand
Shreesanthcannotleadtoanyinferenceofanyfixingofmatches.
Evenifitisacceptedthathewasoperatingonlinebettingactionsand
wasparticipatinginfixingtheplayersthentooasalreadydiscussed
abovetheseactivitiesdonotqualifyasthepenaloffenceunderany
statute. Moreover, the prosecution has sought to invoke MCOCA
againsthimforwhichitwasnecessarytoshowthathehadsomelink
withthecrimesyndicateofChhotaShakeelDawood.Theentireevi
97 of 175
dencedoesntspeakofhishavinganynexusassociationorcommu
nicationwiththesyndicatedirectlyindirectlyorevenremotely.Noof
fenceisprimafaciedisclosedagainstthisaccusedeveniftheentire
evidenceofprosecutionisadmittedwithoutanyformalproof.
AjitChandila
168
InthewrittensubmissionssubmittedonbehalfofAjitChandila
aswellasintheargumentsaddressedinthecourt,thefirstground
onwhichthecaseoftheprosecutionischallengedisthattheingredi
entsofMCOCAarenotsatisfiedinrelationtoaccusedAjitChandalia,
Firstandforemost,therehastobeacontinuingunlawfulactivityas
definedunderSection2(e)oftheAct.Theoffencewhichisbeingal
legedlycommittedismatchfixingwhichinitselfisnotanunlawfulac
tivity.Furthermore,hashasbeenheldinthecaseofRanjitSingh
(Supra)inordertoinvokeMCOCAmensreaisnecessary.Theen
tirecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedAjitChandiladoesnot
evenprimafacieshowthataccusedAjitChandiawashavingthenec
essarymensreaortheknowledgethatthepersonswithwhomhe
wasinteractingwerepartoforganizedcrimesyndicate.Ithasbeen
heldinthesaidcasethatcommunicationorassociationwithanyper
sonmustbewiththeactualknowledgeorhavingreasontobelieve
thatheisengagedinassistingtheorganizedcrimesyndicate.The
necessarynexuswhichisaprerequisiteasalsoprovidedincaseof
Lalit Somdutt Nagpal (supra), has not been established
againstheaccused.
169
Itisalsoarguedthateven Section120BIPC isnot
applicableasAjitChandaliahasneitherdoneanyillegalactivitynor
anyotheractivitybyillegalmeans.AjitChandaliawasarrestedon
98 of 175
16.05.13.DuringthescrutinyofmobilenumbersofSunilBhatiaand
KiranDole,theunderworldconduitcumhenchmen,itwasrevealed
thattheybothwereintouchwithAjitChandaliathroughmobilenum
bers7567094514,9711724141,9899999319(whichissubscribedin
hisname)and93807_____thatwerebeingusedbyhim.Thesemo
bilenumbersweretakenonlawfulinterceptionanditwasestablished
thatSunilBhatiaandKiranDolewereintouchwithAjayChandiladur
ing IPL 6 through other crickets namely Manish Guddewar
(979954607number)andBabuRaoYadav(9096078576).Thecon
tinuousmonitoringofinterceptednumbersfurtherrevealedthatAjit
Chandaliawasalsointouchwithmanybookiesandwasreceiving
hugeamountsofmoneyinlieuofspot/sessionfixing.Thelawfulinter
ceptionledtoaccusedChandBhai(916050055)andaccusedManan
Bhat(8758833324and9998288555),whowerealsofoundtobefix
ingAjitChandaliaandotherplayersofRajasthanRoyalsinlieuof
money,girlsandgifts.ThemonitoringofAjitChandaliasnumberfur
therledtocoaccused BabuRaoYadav (9555555518)whointurn
was found linked with money financer Vicky Chaudhary, Vinod
SharmaandNitinJain,allthreearecoaccusedinthiscase.Ithas
beenfurtherestablishedthroughinterceptionsthatAjitwasalsoin
touchwithanotherfixerfromPunjabnamelyDeepakwhoisalsoa
coaccused.DeepakinturnwasfoundlinkedwithRakesh@Rocky
and SandeepSharma@Sandi bothofwhomwerefinancersfor
abovesaidDeepak.
170
Itisfurthersubmittedthatonthebasisofthedisclosurestate
mentmadebyAccusedAjitChandilaandcoaccusedChandreshPa
tel,twowatcheswererecoveredwhichweregiftedtoAjitChandela
byChand,thefixeraspartofadvanceforspotfixing.ThePayment
99 of 175
receiptscollected fromthestoresfromwherethesewatcheswere
purchasedshowsthatthepaymentsweremadebyChand@Chan
dreshPatel.Further,therecordbillsof HotelJWMarriot,Jaipurof
April2013,establishthat hehadstayedthereasmemberofRa
jasthanRoyalsteam,alongwithaccusedChandreshPatelandothers
toplanandexecutespotfixingduringIPL6cricketmatches. Ajit
Chandelahasalsodisclosedthathehadbeengiftedexpensivesun
glassesin2012,bySunilBhatwhichhehadpurchasedfromKhan
Market,Delhi.AjitChandaliaalsodisclosedhavingreceivedRs.12
lacsfromSunilBhatiainspotfixinginIPL5in2012,buthewasforced
toreturnthesaidmoneytoSunilBhatiasincehewasunabletopro
videtherequisiteunderperformancetowhichhehadagreed.During
theinvestigations,onechequeof4lacswasfoundtobedebitedin
theaccountofSunilBhatia.TwomorechequesofRs.4lacseach
wererecoveredfromSunilBhatiaatthetimeofhisarrestandboth
thesechequeswerefoundtohavebeendishonoredduetoinsuffi
cientfunds.
171
Theprosecutionhasalsoreliedontheconfessionalstatement
ofSunilBhatiaunderSection18ofMCOCA,whereinSunilBhatia
hadstatedthatinIPL,2012AjitChandilahadtakenalotofmoney
fromTinkuthroughHawala,buthefailedtoperformonsomeocca
sionsdespitewhichhedidnotreturnthemoney.Sunilcasuallymen
tionedthistoTinku,whointurncalledupJavedChautaniinPakistan
andrequestedtospeaktoChotaShakeelinthisregard.Healsogave
Ajit'snumbertoJavedChutani.Fromthis,hecametoknowthathe
washavinglinkswiththeunderworld.Itwasthus,concludedthatthe
100 of 175
evidenceprovedtheinvolvementofAjitChandaliainspotfixingwith
accusedSunilBhatiaandAshwaniAgarwalbothoperativeof Da
woodIbrahimChotaShakeelsyndicateandthathewasawareof
thefactthathisassociateswerelinkedwithunderworld.
172
ItisfurtherallegedthatduringinvestigationsAjitChandaliahad
disclosedtohavemetaccusedKiranDholeinDelhibeforeIPL6and
demandedRs.25lakhstowhichKiranDholeagreed.However,he
failedtoperformasperthedemandsofhisfixers,SunilBhatiaandKi
ranDholewhothreatenedhimtoreturnthemoney.Thereafter,Sunil
BhatiacalledAshwaniAgarwalandthereafterAjitChandilahadtore
turnRs.20lacs.SunilBhatiahadalsodisclosedthathehadarranged
ameetingofAjitChandaliawithTinkubeforeIPL6andRs.25lakhs
weregiventhroughHawalabyTinku.However,hedidnotgivethe
requisitesignalsinthematchesthatwereplayedandAjitChandalia
returned20LakhsincashthroughoneSukharamandoneVivek,ac
quaintancesofKiranDoleandsoughtsometimetoreturntheremain
ingamount.Itwasthusconcluded,thatconfessionalstatementsof
Sunil Bhatia and those of Sukharam and Vivek fully support the
transferofmoneytoAjitChandelaformatchfixing.
173
Itisarguedthatallthisevidencethathasbeenplacedagainst
AjitChandIladoesnotevenprimafacieshowthatAjitChandilahad
anyknowledgeaboutAshwaniAggarwalandotherpersons being
partofthecrimesyndicaterunbyDawoodIbrahimandChottaSha
keel.Itisfurthersubmittedthatmatchfixingactivityisnotanoffence
underIPCandnochargescanbeframedagainsttheaccused,whois
entitledtobedischarged.
101 of 175
174
ThechargethatispressedagainstAccusedAjitChandaliais
ofbeingmemberoforganizedcrimesyndicateandbeingprimematch
fixer.TheconfessionalstatementofcoaccusedSunilBhatiamakesa
referencetopresentaccusedAjitChandaliaofhavingtakenmoney
ontwooccasionsforunderperformance,butitismentionedinthe
confessionalstatementofSunilBhatiaitselfthatonboththeocca
sionshedidnotunderperformandhadagreedtoreturnthemoney.
DuringIPL,2013,outof25lakhsthatwerereceivedbyhim,hehad
returnedRs.20lakhstoVivekthroughwitnessSukharam.Thestate
mentsofwitnessesSukharamandVivekunderSection164Cr.P.C
alsoconfirmaboutthereturnofmoney.Theevidenceevenifadmitted
intoto,onlyshowsthatAjitChandelahadagreedtounderperform,
buthedidnotdoso.Heisnotshowntohavecheatedanybodysince
hedidnotunderperformaftertakingmoney.
175
ThechargethatispressedagainstAccusedAjitChandaliais
ofbeingmemberoforganizedcrimesyndicateandbeingprimematch
fixer.TheconfessionalstatementofcoaccusedSunilBhatiamakesa
referencetopresentaccusedAjitChandaliaofhavingtakenmoneyon
twooccasionsforunderperformance,butitismentionedinthecon
fessionalstatementofSunilBhatiaitselfthatonboththeoccasionshe
didnotunderperformandhadagreedtoreturnthemoney.DuringIPL
13,outof25lakhsthatwerereceivedbyhim,hehadreturnedRs.20
lakhs to Vivek through witness Sukharam. The statements of wit
nessesSukharamandVivekunderSection164Cr.P.Cmayalsocon
firmaboutthereturnofmoney,buttheevidenceevenifadmittedin
toto,onlyshowsthatAjitChandelahadagreedtounderperform,but
hedidnotdoso.Heisnotshowntohavecheatedanybodysincehe
didnotunderperformaftertakingmoney.
102 of 175
176
Furthermore,eveniftheconfessionalstatementofSunilBhatia
isacceptedagainstaccusedAjitChandela,that25lakhshadbeen
giventohimbyMajorbookieAshwaniAggarwal,butthereisnotan
iotaofevidencetosuggestthatAjitChandaliawasawareoftherebe
inganynexusbetweenAshwaniAggarwalandtheorganizedcrime
syndicateallegedlybeingrunbyDawoodIbraihimandChottaSha
keel.InordertoinvokeMCOCA,therehastobealinkornexuswith
thecoresyndicatewhichisnotestablished.Moreover,mereagree
menttounderplayinitselfwouldnotfallwithinthedefinitionofunlaw
fulactivitywhichisalsoanessentialingredientforanoffencetobe
heldasorganizedcrime.Simplyreceivinggiftsofwatchesorsun
glassesfromcoaccusedKiranDholecanneitherbeheldasconsid
erationformatchfixing,norcanitbetermedasanycrime.Accused
AjeetChandilamayhavebeenshowntobeknowingKiranDoleand
others,butthereisnoevidencewhatsoevertoshowthathewashav
inganyknowledgeofassociationofSunilBhatia,AshawaniAggarwal
andothersifatallwiththecoresyndicate.Intheabsenceoftherebe
inganynexusofAjitChandaliawithcorecrimesyndicate,nooffence
ofbeingamemberoforganizedcrimesyndicatepunishableunder
section3ofMCOCAismadeout.Thoughintheconfessionalstate
mentofSunilBhatiathereisamentionof25lakhsbeingtransferred
toAjitChandaliathroughHawala,butthereisnoevidencetothisef
fectonrecord. AjitChandaliamayhavereturnedRs.20lakhs,but
thereisnoproofofthesameexceptthestatementsoftwowitnesses
namelySakharamandVivek.EvenifitisacceptedthatRs.20lakhs
werereturnedbyAjitChandila,therecannotbeanyinferencedrawn
that this was a part of Hawala transaction. No prima facie case
103 of 175
againstAjitChandilaforanyoftheoffencesunderIPCorMCOCAare
madeout.
VikasChaudhary@Vicky,NitinJain@Susu,VinodSharma@
SonuandBhupenderNagar
177
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedVikasChaudhary
@Vicky,NitinJain@Susu,VinodSharma@SonuandBhupender
Nagaris that they were involved in spot fixing in IPL 6. Accused
BhupenderNagarwasarrestedon27.05.2013fromNoida,U.P.He
wasfoundtobeworkingasabounceratJynxxClubatHotelEros,
NehruPlace,Delhi.Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthathecamein
contactwithAjitChandilathroughpublicwitnessSukhram.Bupender
Nagar thereafter, arrangedmeetings ofbookies namelyNitinJain,
VikasChaudhary@VickyandVinodSharmawithAjitChandilain
JaipurandDelhiforthepurposeofspotfixing.
178
Investigations revealed that on few occasions Ajit Chandila
gave tips relating to match condition, pitch, playing eleven etc to

BhupenderNagarandotheraccusednamedaboveafteraccepting
moneyandtheyearnedaprofitofRs.90laksthroughhim.Accused
BhupenderNagaralsoearnedRs.5lakhsonaccountofthesetips.
Rs.50,000/wererecoveredfromBhupenderNagarwhowasalleged
tobepartofproceedsofcrime.Remainingproceedsweresharedby
NitinJain,VikasChaudhaaryandVinodSharma. Asimcardwas
alsorecoveredfromBhupenderNagar.Theinterceptedcallsbetween
Ajit Chandila, Nitin Jain, Vikas Chaudhary, Vinod Sharma and
accusedBhupenderNagarshowtheirnexus inspot/sessionmatch
fixing.Thisisalsocorroboratedbytheirpresencetogetherinhotelsin
Jaipur, Delhi and Rajasthan. This clearly proves that Bhupender
104 of 175
NagarwasinvolvedinspotfixinginIPL6 alongwithotheraccused
persons. ItisalsoallegedthattheinvestigationrevealthatVinod,
VikasandNitinhadgivenRs.8lakhsincashtoAjitChandilathrough
BupenderNagar.
179
The only evidence that the prosecution has been able to
presentagainstthesefouraccusedisthattheyallhadapproached
AjitChandilaandhadpaidhimRs.8lakhsforspotfixingandalsothat
theyhadgiveninformationaboutpitchconditionetcandearnedabout
Rs.90lakhsbywayoftips thatweresharedbythem. Again,the
allegationsagainstthesefouraccusedareconjecturalfortheonly
evidenethattheprosecutionisofmeetingbetweenthesepeopleand
AjitChandila.Theotherallegationofgivinginformationandgivingof
Rs.8lakhscashtoAjitChandilaintheallegedmatchfixingispurely
conjecturalandnotbasedonlegallyadmissibleevidence.Evenifitis
acceptedthattheyhadapproachedAjitChandilaformatchfixing,but
thereisnothingtoshowthattheywereworkingasapartoforganized
crimesyndicateorhadanynexuswhatsoeverwithanyofthebookies
whowerethecoaccusedinthiscase.Nooffenceunderanystatute
ismadeoutagainstanyoftheefouraccused.
MananU.Bhatt
180
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedMananU
Bhatt whowasarrestedon16May,2013from Mumbai,isthathe

wasabookie/fixerwhohadcontactedAjitChandilathroughanother
cricketer/accused,AmitKumar.Twomobilephonesthatwereused
byhimincommissionofoffence,wererecovered.Duringinvestiga
tions,itwasrevealedthathehadvisitedvariousplacesinIndiaforthe
105 of 175
purposeofspotfixing.Further,theinterceptedcallsrevealthathe
alongwithChandreshPatel,usedtoarrangegirlsforAjittoinfluence
andallurehiminspotfixing.Investigationsalsorevealedthathehad
stayedinFaridabad,HaryanaformeetingaccusedChandila.Thereis
alsoevidencetoshowthatheusedtositinthestadiumandpasson
liveinformationofspotfixingbygivingsignalstococonspirators.The
datacollectedfromtheseveralphonesthatwererecoveredfromhis
personalpossession,revealedthathewasdeeplyinvolvedinHawala
transactionsandhadalsobeenapproachinginternationalplayersin
anattempttocompromisethemintothisfixingsyndicate.
181
Ld.Counselonbehalfofaccusedhasarguedthatthe
disclosurestatementsoftheaccusedareinadmissibleunderSection
23ofIndianEvidenceAct.Themobilephoneshadbeenrecovered
beforethedisclosurestatementsandtherefore,cannotbeheldad
missibleunderSection27ofIndianEvidenceAct.Itisarguedthatthe
onlyevidencethatemergesagainsthimisthathehadbeenarranging
airticketsforvariousplayersbutthatinitselfdoesnotestablishany
caseagainsthim.Furthermore,thecallsinterceptsarenotsupported
bythecertificate u/s65BofIndianEvidenceAct.Noconfessional
statementhadbeenmadebyhimwhichcanberead inevidence
againsthim.Therefore,thereisnoprimafaciecasedisclosedandhe
isentitledtobedischarged.
182
Theallegationsoftheprosecutionagainsthimarethathehad
beenarranginggiftsetcforvariousplayersandthatheusedtoremain
presentduringthematchesinthestadiumtopassonliveinformation
ofspotfixing.However,thereisnolegallyadmissibleevidenceinthis
106 of 175
regard whatsoever to show that he was involved in passing of

information except his disclosure statement which is inadmissible.
Furtherevenifitisacceptedthathewasindulgingintheseactivities,
thentoo,thereisnoevidencewhatsoevertoshowthathewasacting
asmemberoftheCrimeSyndicate.Thereisnoevidencetoshowthat
hehadtherequisitemensreatobeconsideredasamember.Heis
alsonotshowntobehavinganycommunicationorassociationwith
theCrimeSyndicate.Buyingofgiftsandmakingtravelarrangements
fortheplayersmayshowthathewasknowntotheplayers.Butfrom
this,nopenaloffenceunderanystatuteincludingMCOCAisprima
faciedisclosedagainstthisaccused.
S.Shreesanth,JijuJanardhanandAbhishekShukla
183
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedS.Shreesanthas
summarized in pages 309 to 322 of the charge sheet, are that

accusedP.JijuJanardhanan@JijuclosefriendofS.Shreesanth
persuadedhimtoparticipateinspotfixinginlieuofpaymentofRs.60
lacsincashinexchangeofwhichS.Shreesanthwastoconcede14+
runsinoneoverinamatchbetweenKingsXIPunjabandRajasthan
Royals, to be played at Mohali on 09.05.2013. Pursuant to this
conspiracy,Rs.10lacsasadvancewasgivenbyP.JijuJanardhanan
to S. Shreesanth in first week of May, 2013. As per the plan,
Sreesanthwastogiveasignalbytuckinghishandtowelinhistrouser
andbydoingsomestretchingexercisewhichwouldactasasignal
before the fixed over. Despite best efforts, S. Shreesanth could
107 of 175
concede13runsinthesaidover.Interceptedcallsofbookiesshow
thattheyappreciatedtheeffortsthatS.Shreesanthhadputduringthe
saidover.
184
Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatfromtheadvance
moneythatwas paidtoS.Shreesanth,hepurchasedtwomobile
phonesfromJaipurandgavethemtohistwofriendsSakshiJhalaand
Deepika,whichwerelateronrecoveredfromthem. Rs.1.93lacs
werespentbyhimatDieselStore,atJuhu,Mumbaitobuyclotheson
14/15.05.2013.TheamountofRs.5.5lacswereallegedlyremovedby
coaccusedAbhishekShukla.
185
Inordertocorroboratetheseassertions,theprosecutionhas
relied upon the intercepted calls between accused P. Jiju

Janardhanan and S. Shreesanth as well as between P. Jiju
Janardhanan and various other bookies and also inter se
conversationsbetweenthebookies.
186
The allegations of the prosecution against accused P. Jiju
Janardanan@Jijuwhowasarrestedon16.05.2013fromMumbai,is
thatheisaclosefriendofaccusedS.SreesantofRajasthanRoyals
andhadstayedwithhimatMRFPoloAcademy,Chennaiwhereboth
ofthemhaddonetraining during20012003P.JijuJanardanan@
JijuhimselfwasacricketerandhadplayedforGujaratatwhichtime
he became a close friendofaccused AmitKumarSingh. Itis
alleged that during IPL6, Amit Kumar Singh approached P. Jiju
Janardanan@JijutoinvolveS.SreesanthinspotfixinginlieuofRs.
60Lakhsperperformance.AccusedP.JijuJanardanan@Jijuhad
108 of 175
succeeded in persuading S. Sreesant as per the wishes of the

Syndicate duringthematchplayedbetweenKingsX1Punjaband
RajasthanRoyals,forconsiderationofRs.60Lakhs.
187
InthefirstweekofMay,2013P.JijuJanardanan@Jijutook
Rs.10LakhsincashfromChandreshPatelatJ.WMariotHotelat
Jaipur, Rajasthan. From this amount he purchased two mobiles
phonesforS.Sreesanth,whointurngavethemtohistwogirlfriends
namelyShakshiJhalaandDeepikawhowerebothresidentofJaipur.
P.JijuJanardanan@Jiju andaccusedSreesanthalsospent1.93
LakhsforpurchasingclothesinastoreatMumbai.Itisallegedthat
afterS.SreesantwasarrestedP.JijuJanardanan@Jijumanagedto
removeunspentcashwiththehelpofcoaccusedAbhishekShukla
fromhishotelSofitelroom.
188
The prosecution has tried to cement these assertions by
interceptedcallsbetweenS.SreesanthandP.JijuJanardanan@Jiju
who were discussing aboutRs. 3Lakhs to be retained byP.Jiju
Janardanan@JijuwhileRs.7LakhstobetakenbyS.Sreesanth.
Besidesthis,theprosecutionhasrelieduponotherinterceptedcallsto
establishhisdeepinvolvementinIPL6spotandsessionmatchfixing.
189
AccusedAbhishekShuklawasarrestedon28.05.2013.Heis
claimedtobeafriendofaccusedS.SreesantandP.JijuJanadanan.
ItisclaimedthatwhenS.SreesanthandP.JijuJanardananwere
arrested,heremovedtheproceedsofspotfixingi.eRs.5.5lakhsfrom
their room at Hotel Sofitel, Mumbai and retained the same with
himself.ThiscashofRs.5.5lakhswasrecoveredfromhisFlatNo.3,
109 of 175
VabhibariCooperativeHousingSociety,No.4Bunglow,ChurchLane,
WestMumbaI.Also,CCTVfootagerecordedon16.05.2013ofHotel
Sfitel,Mumbaishowthathehadremovedthearticlesfromtheroom,
afterthearrestofaccusedS.Sreesanth. Twomobilephoneswere
alsorecoveredfromhimatthetimeofhisarrest.Thescrutinyofcall
detailsshowthathewasinconstantcontactwithaccusedS.Sreesant
and P. Jiju Janardanan. He had also accompanied accused S.
Sreesant and P. Jiju Janardanan to Diesel Store, Mumbai for
shopping. It is claimed that the continuous presence of accused
AbhishekShuklaatvariousmatchvenuesshowshiscloselinkwith
accusedS.SreesantandP.JijuJanardanan.
190
Ithasbeenarguedthatthereisnotasinglestatementunder
Section 161Cr.P.Coranyinterceptedphonecall betweenP.Jiju

Janardhanan and S. Sreesanth that could indicate that P. Jiju
JanardhananhadpersuadedS.Shreesanthtoparticipateintheactof
spotfixingorthatS.Shreesanthhadconsentedtoconcede14+runs
in the fixed over. Furthermore, there is not a single phone call
conversationbetweenS.Shreesanthandanyotherallegedbookieor
the so called member of organized crime syndicate. The only
incriminating evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the
conversationbetweenP.JijuJanardhananand ChandreshPatel@
Chand(Bookie)whereinP.JijuJanardhananwastellingChandresh
PatelthatHeislittlestubbornaboutthis.Heisplayingaftera
longtimeandheisriskingtime....maineuskosamjhadiya,but
hedidnotwanttotakerisk.Thisconversationisof9thMay,2013
at12.13P.Mandis,therefore,closesttothepointoftimetothematch
inquestion.ThisclearlyrevealstheintentionofS.Shreesanth.
110 of 175
191
In Dr. Arup Kumar Srivastava vs. CBI Crl.M.C 4360/2012
decidedon21.11.2013itwasheldbyHon'bleHighCourtofDelhithat
allcallsmustbecorelatedandifonecalldemolishesthecontentof
otherincriminatingcall,thebenefitofthesameshouldbegiventothe
accused.Itwasthus,arguedthatthereisnotaniotaofevidenceto
showthattherewasanagreementforpaymentofRs.60lacstoS.
Shreesanthforfixinganoverbyconceding14+runsinthematchto
beplayedon09.05.2013. Thereisalsonoevidencewhatsoeverto
showthatanamountofRs.10lacshadbeenhandedovertoP.Jiju
Janardhananbythebookies,whichinturnwashandedoverbyhimto
S.Shreesanth.TheconversationbetweenP.JijuJanardhananand
S.Sreesanthareinnocuousandarenotsuggestivethatanymoney
camefromthesocalledspotfixingfund.AllthatS.Shreesanthwas
askingP.JijuJanardhanantodowastobuytwocellphones.
192
Itisfurtherarguedthatinsofarastuckingoftowelinthepants
anddoingstretchingexerciseinanoverisconcerned,S.Shreesanth
regularlydidsoasgenerallyotherplayersallovertheworld,do.Itis
further argued that the alleged conversation between Chandresh
Patel and Jitender Kumar Jain @ Jeetu Tharad is only for
concedingof14+runsinagivenover,butthereisnomentionofthe
samepertainingtoS.Shreesanth.Itwasfurtherstatedthatif13runs
wereconceded,thenthedealwouldbecancelled.Asitturnedout,S.
Sreesanth gave away only 13 runs and even if the case of the
prosecutionisaccepted,thedealwasnotfulfilled.
193
Itwasfurtherarguedthatthedetailedanalysisoftheoverin
111 of 175
question would show that S. Sreesanth had bowled a legal and

competent over, as in the first four balls, only five runs were
conceded.Thefirstandthirddeliveryweredotballsandonlyonerun
was conceded in thefourthball. Noextrarunwasconcededon
accountofwide,noballetc.
194
It is further argued that S. Sreesanth had signed the IPL
contractforwhichhewastoearn1Crore84Lacsinthesessionin
question. On03.04.2013,hisaccountbalanceinHSBCBankwas
Rs.36,23,101/andhistotalATMcashwithdrawnfortheperiodApril,
2013wasoverRs.10lacs. Inthegivenscenario,nopresumption
couldberaisedthatthepurchasemadebytheS.Shreesanthwere
fromtheadvancereceivedfromthebookiesorthatsuchexpenses
werenotmadefromhislegallyearnedincome.
195
ItisfurtherarguedthattherecoveryofRs.5.5lacfromthe
houseofAbhishekShuklaisshamanditisthedisclosurestatement
masqueradingasseizure/recoverymemo.Atbest,itcanbesaidthat
Rs.5.5lacswererecoveredfromhim,butthatrecoverycannotbe
connectedtoS.Shreesanthonthebasisofdisclosurestatementof
AbhishekShukla.
196 Ithasbeenfurtherpointedoutthatthecalldetailrecordsof
mobilenumberofS.ShreesanthandP.JijuJanardhananhadmaterial
discrepanciesandalsotheseconversationshavebeeninterceptedin
violationofSection5ofTelegraphActandpersenotadmissibleas
hasbeenheldinthecaseofStateofU.Pvs.SingharaSinh&
Ors.AIR1964SC358.Moreover,interceptedconversationsarenot
112 of 175
substantiveevidencebutonlycorroborativeinnature.InMahabir
PrasadVermavs.Dr.SurinderKaur(1982)SCC258itwas
heldthatthetaperecordedconversationsareonlycorroborativeand
in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the same
cannotbeheld tobeproperevidenceandcannotbereliedupon.
Furthermore,thedisclosurestatementofJitenderKumarJainand
AbhishekShukla are inadmissibleagainstS.Sreesanth.Likewise,
thedisclosurestatementsofS.Sreesanthareinadmissiblebyvirtue
ofSection25and26ofIndianEvidenceAct,ashasbeenheldinthe
caseofAghnooNagesiavs.StateofBiharAIR1966SC199.
Itisthus,arguedthatthereisnoprimafacieevidencetoshowthatS.
Shreesanth was a part of the organized crime Syndicate or was
involvedinanycontinuingunlawfulactivity.Nopreviouschargesheet
ofanyoffencehasbeenfiledagainsthimandthereisnoevidenceto
inferanyconspiracybetweenhimand P.JijuJanardhanan. Itis,
therefore,arguedthatS.Shreesanthisentitledtobedischarged.
197
Similar arguments have been addressed on behalf of Jiju
JanardhanandAbhishekShukla.
198
Asalreadydiscussedabove,inordertoinvokeSection3and4
ofMCOCAagainsttheaccusedS.Shreesanth,JijuJanardhanand
AbhishekShukla,thefirstrequirementisthattheymustbeshownto
be members of the Organized Crime Syndicate. As per the
prosecution the organized Crime Syndicate were being run by
Dawood and Chotta Shakeel for carrying out various unlawful
activitiesofmurder,exhortation,terrorismandmoneylaundering.The
prosecution in order toinvoke MCOCA was first requiredtoshow
113 of 175
somenexusorlinkbetweenthecrimesyndicateandtheaccusedS.
Shreesanth. The only link that has been shown is P. Jiju
Janardhanan. However, the conversation between P. Jiju
Janardhanan and S. Shreesanth does not show that P. Jiju
JanardhananhadapproachedS.Shreesanthforfixingtheoverorthat
itwasdoneasapartofactivityofcrimesyndicaterunbyDawoodand
ChottaShakeel.Furthermore,ithasbeenrightlypointedoutbythe
Ld.Counselfortheaccusedthattheconversationbetween P.Jiju
JanardhananandS.Shreesanthareinnocuous anddonotinany
mannerrevealtheconspiracyoffixingtheover. Theconversation
dated 09.05.2013 between Chandresh Patel and P. Jiju
Janardhanan in fact, clinches the issue for it is evident from the
conversationthatS.Shreesanthwasnotwillingtofixtheoversince
hehadcometoplaythegameafteralongtimeandwasnotwillingto
takearisk. Thisisfurtherconfirmedfromthefactthatthealleged
fixedoverendeduptoin13runsasagainsttheagreed14+runs.As
pertheconversationbetweenChandreshPatelandJitenderKumar
Jain@JituthedealforallegedpaymentofRs.60lacswastostand
cancelledincaselessthan14runswereconceded. Ashasbeen
argued,therewereonly13runsconcededandthus,deal,ifany,was
nevergiveneffectto.
199
Theotherevidenceonwhichtheprosecutionhasrelied
is the disclosure statement of S. Shreesanth which are per se

inadmissibleunderSection25and26ofIndianEvidenceAct. As
rightly argued, mere recovery of Rs.5.5 lacs from the house of
AbhishekShuklacannotconnecttheaccusedS.Shreesanthwiththe
saidrecoveryandnoconclusionprimafaciecanbedrawnthatitwas
partofRs.10lacsthatwereallegedlygivenasadvanceforplayingthe
114 of 175
fixedover.
200
TheprosecutionhasallegedthatP.JijuJanardanan@Jiju
wastheconduit tofixS.Sreesanthforwhichithasreliedontwo
telephonic conversations of 6.5.2013. The content of first
conversationshowthatS.SreesantaskedP.JijuJanardanan@Jiju
tobuythreephonesandP.JijuJanardanan@Jijustated:
3chahiye,OK,Meindekhtahoon..bakilagadega
paisakyonkharchkarnahain.Abhidashaiteenleta
hoon.7yahirakhahai,7terekodedunga,kabchahiye
batana.
201
Thesecondconversation isonlytodecidethemodelof2
mobilephonesthatweretobepurchased.
202
The only implication that can be drawn from these
conversationsisthatP.JijuJanardanan@Jijuwashavingostensibly
Rs.10LakhsfromwhichheagreedtobringRs.3Lakhsformaking
purchasesincludingthatofthreemobilephonesthatwererequested
tobepurchasedbyS.Sreesanth.Whileheagreedtoretainseven
lakhstobegivensubsequently.Themaximuminferencethatcanbe
drawn is that P. Jiju Janardanan@ Jiju washavingonly Rs.10
Lakhs,outofwhichheagreedtomakepurchasesfrom3Lakhswhile
Rs.7Lakhsweretoberetainedforthefuture.Thisinitselfdoesnot
remotelyshowthatP.JijuJanardanan@JijuhadacceptedRs.10
LakhsforandonbehalfofS.Sreesanth forthepurposeofmatch
fixing.TheevidenceagainstP.JijuJanardanan@Jijuneithershows
thathewasinvolvedinfixingS.SreesanthorofacceptingRs.10
115 of 175
Lakhsfromanybookie.ThereisabsolutelynoevidenceagainstP.
JijuJanardanan@Jijutoshowthathewasinvolvedorwasaconduit
infixingS.Sreesanttoplayafixedmatch.Also,thereisnonexus
shownofP.JijuJanardanan@Jijuwithanyofthebookieswhowere
allegedlyintouchwithDoctorJavedChutani,whowasapartofthe
alleged organized crime syndicate of Dawood or chotta Shakeel.
NeithertheoffenceunderMCOCAorunderanysectionofIPCorany
otherLawisprimafacieismadeoutagainstP.JijuJanardanan@
Jiju.
203
InsofarastheaccusedAbhishekShuklaisconcerned,heis
shown to be a close friend of accused S. Sreesanth and P. Jiju

JanardananandhadbeenstayingwiththematHotelSofitel.Hehad
accompaniedthemforshopping.Theonlyallegationagainsthimis
thatRs.5.5lakhswererecoveredfromhishousewhichwereinfact,
removed by him from the room of hotel Sofitel of accused S.
Sreesanth,whenhewasarrested.Theseallegationsinitselfwithout
therebeinganythingelsecanbynostretchofimagination,betermed
asany evidenceunderanylaw. Theprosecutionhadclaimedthat
theseRs.5.5lakhswerepartofthemoneythathadbeenacceptedby
accusedS.Sreesanthforagreeingtoplayafixedover.However,as
alreadydiscussedabove,theallegedoverthatwasclaimedtohave
been agreed to be fixed was in fact not played according to the
agreement.S.Sreesanthadmittedlycouldnotgive14runstowhich
he had allegedly agreed. There is nothingtoshow that accused
Abhishek Shukla was a coconspirator with S. Sreesant or had
indulgedinanycriminalactivity.Evenifthecaseoftheprosecutionis
accepted that accused Abhishek Sukla had removed Rs.5.5 lakhs
116 of 175
belongingtoaccusedS.Sreesantandhadkeptthesaidamount,then
toothisdoesamounttoanyoffence.Italsodoesnotshowthathe
wasinanywayconnectedwiththecrimesyndicateallegedlyindulging
in betting and match fixing in an organized way. No offence
whatsoeverismadeoutagainstaccusedAbhishekShukla.
204
The entire evidence as placed against Jiju Janardhan,
Sreesanth and Abhishek Shukla only shows that Sreesanth was

approachedbyJijuJanardhantoplayafixedoveratthebehestof
ChandreshPatelbutthesamedidnothappenandSreesanthhad
alsorefusedtoplaythefixedover.Noevidencewhatsoeverisplaced
onrecordtoshowthattheywereincommunicationwithorassociated
withorganizedcrimesyndicateandweretheabettorsofthecrimes
allegedlybeingcommittedbythesyndicate.
205
Atthepointofrepetition,itmayalsobepointedoutthatthe
otheressentialingredientforinvokingMCOCAisthatthereshouldbe
continuing unlawful activitywhich means that there should be
somenexus shown betweenthesethreeaccusedandthealleged
crimesyndicate,whichiswanting.Also,thereshouldbeatleasttwo
chargesheetsinprecedingtenyearsinregardtooffencepunishable
withthesentenceofthreeyearsormoreandinwhichcognizance
musthavebeentakenbytheCourtofcompetentjurisdiction.Thereis
notevenasinglecriminalcasethathasbeenregisteredagainstthe
accusedS.Shreesanth,JijuJanardhanandAbhishekShuklapriorto
thepresentcase.Intheabsenceofthisandofnexuswiththecrime
syndicate, it cannot be said that he was indulging in continuing
unlawfulactivity.
117 of 175
206
EveniftheentireprosecutionasproducedagainstaccusedS.
Shreesanth,JijuJanardhanandAbhishekShuklabytheprosecution
isadmitted,thentoonoprimafaciecaseinanyoffenceincluding
Section3MCOCAismadeoutagainsttheaccusedpersonsandthey
areentitledtobedischarged.
AnkitChavan
207
Thecaseofprosecutionagainst AnkitChavan isthat
theinvestigationsrevealedthathewasanemployeeofAirIndiaand
wasplayingforRajasthanRoyalsinIPL6.Hewasinvolvedinspot
/sessionfixingon15.05.2013inamatchbetweenRajasthanRoyals
andMumbaiIndiansatMumbaiandhadtakenRs.60lakhsincashin
liethereof.HehadmetBookieJitenderJainthroughChandreshPa
teltojoinintheconspiracyofspotfixinginlieuofheavyconsidera
tion.Hewasarrestedon16May,2013,atMumbai.WitnessSidharth
TrivediinhisstatementunderSection164CrPChaddisclosedthat
AnkitChavanalongwithotherplayers,usedtogoforpartiestogether.
Likewisewitness,HarmeetSinghinhisstatementunderSection164
CrPC.haddisclosedthatAjithadinformedthatAnkitandSreesanth
weretheirpeopleandtheywoulddoit.Statementofthesestwowit
nessesalsosupporttheallegationsofspotfixingagainsthim.Itisfur
ther claimed that in the month of March, 2013 he had metKiran
Dhole,AshwaniAggarwal,AjitChandilainDelhiwhichwasforspot
sessionfixing.Itisfurthersubmittedthat3mobilesphoneswerealso
discoveredfromhim.Scrutinyofcalldetailsofthesenumbersshow
thathehadthelinkswiththebookies.Also,theinterceptedvoicecalls
118 of 175
amongstAnkitChavan,AjitChandilaandChandreshandothersalso
showthathehadagreedtoparticipateinspotfixing.
208
ItisfurthersubmittedthatShriRahulDravid,captainof
RajasthanRoyalandSatyanSaraswat,ChieffinanceofficerofRa
jasthanRoyals,ShriRaghuIyer,ChiefexecutiveofficerofRajasthan
RoyalsandShriPrashantBhardwajhavestatedthattheyhavebeen
cheatedbythisplayerwhomadethembelievethathewouldperform
tothebestofhisability.Itisthus,submittedthatAnkittheplayerhad
agreedtofixingofamatchforaconsiderationatthebehestofbook
ieswhowerepartofcrimesyndicate.
209
Learnedcounselforaccusedhasarguedthattheentire
evidenceascollectedbyprosecutiondoesnotpointoutthatAnkit
Chavanwasamemberofcrimesyndicate.Also,thereisnoevidence
toshowthathehadunderplayedthematchandhadtakenRs60
lakshinlieuthereof.Mereinterceptedcallswithoutbeingsupported
byanyactualfactsofspotfixingcannotmakeoutacaseagainstthe
accused.
210
TheallegationsofprosecutionagainstAnkitChavan,whoisa
cricket player, is that hehadtakenRs.60,00,000/andhadunder

playedinamatchinIPL6inlieuthereof.Thismadehisteamcaptain
RahulDravidandotherofficersandmembersofpublicfeelcheated
bythisplayer,whodidnotperformtobestofhisability.Firstand
foremost, the call intercepts may show that he was known to Ajit
ChandilaandChandreshPatelandhadevenmetJitenderJain,the
bookiebutthereisnoproofwhatsoevertoshowthatRs.60,00,000/
119 of 175
werepaidtohim.Thereisalsonoevidencethathedidnotperformin
the match to the best of his capacity. Even if for the sake of
arguments,itisacceptedthatAnkitChavandidacceptRs.60,00,000/
butthisinitselfcannotleadtoanyinferencethathedidnot playto
bestofhisability.Thestatementsofhiscaptainandotherwitnesses
thathehadunderperformedismerelyconjecturalwithoutanybasis.
In any case, this does not amount to cheating as defined under
section415IPC.
211
The entire evidence against the accused Ankit even if
admitted, does not make him either a member of Core Crime

Syndicatenorisheshowntohavecommittedcheating.Primafacie,
nooffenceismadeoutagainsthim.
RameshVyas
212
ThecaseoftheprosecutionagainstaccusedRameshVyasis
that the lawful interception of calls of accused Ramesh Vyas dis

closedthathewasanimportantmemberofthecrime syndicateof
DawoodIbrahimChotaShakeelsyndicate.InacallbetweenDr.
JavedChutaniandTinkuMandi,itwasrevealedthatRameshVyas
wasoperatingfromMumbaionbehalfoftheunderworld. Theac
cusedRameshVyaswasarrestedon15.05.2013byMumbaipolicein
FIR No.162/13 and he was formally arrested in this case on
08.06.2013. 92mobilephones,18simcards,cashofRs.57,750/
wasrecoveredbyMumbaiPoliceatthetimeofhisarrest.Outofre
covered92mobilephones,30mobilephoneswerefoundtobeused
120 of 175
byhimformakingcontactwithPakistan.Theinvestigationrevealed
thatRameshVyaswaslinkedwithJavedChutaniandoneSalman@
MasterbothaidesofDawoodandChotaShakeelandalsolinkedto
manybookiesinDubai,Delhi,MumbaiandNagpurandotherstates.
AccusedRameshVyasinhisconfessionalstatementunderSection
18,admittedhavingcontactedSalman@MasterandRehmatonthe
mobile numbers that wasprovided tohim byChandresh Patel@
Jupiter,whoisabookieandinvolvedinmatchandsessionfixing.He
alsodisclosedabouthavingreceivedathreatfrommobilenumber
923332064488whoadvisedhimtoworkhonestlywithDoctorand
Master.HeunderstoodthatthesaidphonewaseitherofDawoodand
ChotaShakeel.Itisclaimedbytheprosecutionthatthisconfessional
statementofaccusedRameshVyasclearlyestablisheshisnexuswith
theunderworldcrimesyndicate.
213
Learnedcounselonbehalfofaccusedhasarguedthatnoin
criminatingfactswererevealedfromhiscallintercepts.Further,the
confessionalstatementmadebyRameshVyaswasretractedbyhim
beforelearnedACMMwhohasheldthatthesamewasnotvoluntary.
Further,thesimofmobilephonewasnotinhisactualnameandac
tualphoneownerhasnotbeeninterrogated.Thecalldetailrecordof
otheraccusedhavethisnumber,butthereisnothingtoshowthatthe
saidcallsweremadebytheaccused.Furthermore,theseintercepted
conversations,merelyestablishsomekindofunnaturaltransactions,
buttheyarevagueandarenotindicativeofbetting.Atbest,only
GamblingActcanbeinvokedagainsttheaccusedRameshVyas,but
nooffenceunderSectionMCOCAismadeoutagainsthim.
121 of 175

214
AspertheprosecutionthelinkbetweencrimesyndicateofDa
wood Ibrahim and Chotta Shakeel was prima facie established

throughlawfulinterceptionofcourts.However,therelieduponinter
ceptedcallsarefromthemobilephonewhichisnotinthenameof
accusedRameshVyas.Further,ashasbeenpointedoutthecallde
tailrecordsofotheraccusedbeinghavingthisnumber,butmerelybe
cause thisnumberinterceptedinthecalldetailsofotheraccused
wouldagainnotestablishthatthepersonmakingcontactthroughthat
numberwasRameshVyasintheabsenceoftherebeinganyevi
denceofthesaidmobilephonebeingusedbyhim.Furthermore,the
onlyinferencefromtheseinterceptedconnectionscanbedrawnthat
therewere some suspicious transactionsmaybetakenplace,but
noneofthecontentsoftheseindicatethattheypertaintobetting.The
prosecution has reliedupontheconfessional statementoftheac
cusedRameshVyaswhereinhehasadmittedtobeincontactwith
Salman@MasterandRehmatandmobilephonenumbersthatwere
providedtohimbybyChandreshPatel@Jupiterabookieinvolvedin
matchandsessionfixing.RameshVyasasperhisownconfessional
statementmayhavecontactedSalman@MasterandRehmat,but
thereisnoevidencewhatsoevertoshowthatSalman@Masterand
RehmatweremembersofthecoregroupofDawoodandChottaSha
keel. Further his confessional statement that he had received of
threatcallfromthegivennumberandwasadvisedtoworkhonestly
withDr.JavedChutaniandMasterandthatheunderstoodthatthe
saidphonewaseitherofDawoodorChottaShakeelalsodoesnotes
tablishhislinkwiththeorganizedcrimesyndicate.Asalreadymen
tionedthereisnocogentevidencetoshowthatthemobilephone
122 of 175
923332064488fromwhichtheallegedthreatcall wasreceivedbe
longedtoDawoodIbrahimandChottaShakeel. Alsothisveryfact
thatathreathadbeenreceivedbyhimshowsthathewasnotamem
berofthissyndicateandthathewasnotworkingforandonbehalfof
thissyndicate.TheingredientsofSection3ofMCOCAarenotprima
facie established eveniftheentireevidencehasproducedbythe
prosecutionagainsthimisadmitted.Alsoasdiscussedabovehisac
tivitiesdoesnot qualifyasanevidenceunderPublicGamblingAct.
Noprimafacieoffenceismadeoutagainsthim.
FirozFaridAnsari
215
The caseofprosecutionagainstaccusedFiroz Farid
Ansariisthathewasarrestedon11.06.2013onthebasisoflawfully
intercepted calls between underworld syndicate members Salman
andothers.PursuanttodisclosuresmadebyAshwaniAggarwaland
Ramesh,variousraidswereconductedandfinallyhewasarrestedin
Mumbaion11.06.2013. Fourmobilephones whichwereusedby
himtocontactcoaccusedpersoninIndiaandabroad,wererecov
ered.ItwasfoundthathewasamajorbookieofMumbaihavingdi
rectlinkswithJavedChautani,anaide ofunderworlddonDawood
andChotaShakeelandhavinglinkswithbookiesfromvariousparts
oftheworld.HewasarrestedbyMumbaipolicein2012forbettingin
cricketandheisfacingtrial.RameshVyasintheconfessionalstate
mentundersection18hadrevealedtheinvolvementofFiroz,theac
cusedinthissyndicateofmatchfixing,whichclearlyestablisheshis
nexuswiththecrimesyndicate.Inhisconfessionalstatementunder
section18,FirozFaridAnsarihadadmittedthathewasanassociate
ofZahid,aCloseaideofDawoodandChotaShakeelwhowasmur
123 of 175
deredinbroaddaylightinMumbaibytheshootersofChotaRajan,
theunderworlddon.TheaccusedRameshVyasinhisconfessionals
statementu/s18hasalsodisclosedthatFirozhadextendedthreatto
him through one Ehteyshyam of Pakistan, a member of Dawood
gang.Thereisalsoaninterceptedcall betweenFirozFaridAnsari
andEhteyshyamwhereinaccusedFirozFaridAnsariisfoundtobe
desperateforthe photographofaccusedRameshVyassothathe
couldusethesameforulteriormotives.Alltheseevidenceclearly
pointoutthatFirozFaridAnsarihascloseconnectionswithcrimesyn
dicateofDawoodandChotaShakeelandisinvolvedinorganized
crime.
216
Ld.Counselonbehalfoftheaccusedhasarguedthat
thereisnochargesheetinpreceding10yearsagainstFirozFarid
Ansari.Hehasfurtherarguedthattheconfessionalstatementofco
accusedRameshVyasandalsoofFirozdoesnotshowhislinkwith
thecrimesyndicate.Thephonecalltranscriptsarenotsupportedby
thecertificateu/s65BofIndianEvidenceActandtherefore,arenot
admissibleinevidence.Itisarguedthatthereisnoincriminatingevi
denceagainsthimandheisentitledtobedischarged.
217ThecaseagainstFirozFaridAnsariisthathewasanassociate
ofZahid,acloseaide ofDawoodandChhotaShakeelandafterhe
wasmurderedhetookoverthebusiness.Itisalsorevealedfromthe
confessionalstatementofaccusedRameshVyasthataccusedFiroz
FaridAnsarihasextendedthreatstohimthroughoneEhteyshamwho
was alleged to be a member of Dawood gang. The confessional
statementofaccusedRameshVyasinfactshowsthathewasarival
124 of 175
ratherthanthelinkinthiscrimesyndicate.Ithasalsobeensoughtto
beclaimedthatFirozFaridAnsarihasgotthreatextendedtoRamesh
VyasthroughoneEhteysham,amemberofDawoodgang.Firstly,
there are no details ofanykindtoshowthatRamesh Vyashad
receivedanythreatbyEhteyshamexcepthisownstatement.Further,
thereisnotatraceofevidencethatEhteyshamwhoisclaimedtobea
memberofDawoodgangresidinginPakistan.StatementofRamesh
Vyastothiseffectcannotbeconsideredinevidencewhattotalkof
sufficientevidence.TheprosecutioncaseitselfshowsthatFirozFarid
AnsariandRameshVyaswererivals.EveniftheargumentsofLd.PP
is accepted thatRameshVyasandFirozFaridAnsariweremega
bookiesoperatinginMumbaithentooitisevidentthattheywererivals
and were not part of same syndicate. There is no link of Firoz
establishedwiththecrimesyndicatesoastomakehimamember
and therefore, liable to be trial u/s 3 MCOCA. The evidence as
collectedbytheprosecutionagainsthimdoesnotestablishaprima
faciecaseunderanyofthesectionsunderlaw.
BabuRaoYadav
218
TheallegationsagainstaccusedBabuRaoYadav,an
exRanjiplayerwhowasarrestedon21.05.2013,isthathewasfacili
tatingunderworldhenchmanSunilBhatiabyintroducinghimtocrick
eterAjittoropehimtoperformonbehalfofsyndicate.Theprosecu
tionhasrelieduponSection164statementofwitnessSidharthTrivedi
whohadstatedthatonedayhehadseenSunilBhatia,BabuRaoand
AjitChandelasittingtogetherinahotel.Subsequently,onhisvisitto
Delhi,AjitChandelahadtakenhimalongwithSunilBhatiaandBabu
125 of 175
Raotothemarketforpurchasinggoggles.Itisclaimedthatthisevi
denceestablishesthecontinuouspresenceandassociationoftheac
cusedwithSunilBhatia.
219
The prosecution has also relied on the confessional
statementunderSection18ofaccusedSunilBhatiawhohasalsode
posedthatduringtheWorldCup2011,hehadintroducedSunilBha
tiawithBabuRaoandtwootherpersonsinTajPalacehotel.Inan
otherincident,BabuRaowasfoundsittingalongwithSunilBhatiain
MauryaSheratoninDelhi. ItisthussubmittedthatBabuRaowas
showntobeincloseassociationwithSunilandistherefore,apartof
thecrimesyndicate.
220
Ld.CounselonbehalfofaccusedBabuRaohasargued
thatexceptBabuRaobeingseeninthecompanyofaccusedSunil,
thereisnootherallegationagainsthim.
221
TheentirecaseoftheprosecutionisthataccusedBabu
RaohadbeenfoundinthecompanyofaccusedSunilBhatia,theal
legedhatchmanofthecrimesyndicateandhadbeenfoundsitting
withhimindifferenthotels.Thereisnotaniotaofevidencetoshow
thataccusedBabuRaohadeverparticipatedorwasinstrumentalin
anyoftheactivitiesofSunilBhatiaoroftheallegedcrimesyndicate.
MereassociationorfriendshipwithSunilBhatia,doesnotdisclose
anyoffencepunishableunderanylaw.HismerepresencewithSunil
Bhatiaalsodoesnotshowthathewasapartofthecrimesyndicate.
Therefore,theoffenceunderMCOCAisnotmadeoutagainsthim.
SyedDurreyAhmed@Sohaib(AccusedNo.21),Mohd.Shakeel
Amir (AccusedNo.37), Mohd. Yahia@Yusuf (AccusedNo.19)
126 of 175
andBabuSunilChanderSaxena(AccusedNo.20)
222
The case of the prosecution against these accused is that
accusedMohd.ShakeelAmirmetChandreshPatelwhoapproached
himtofixthepitchcuratorandtopostallthepitchinformationwhich
couldbeusedbythebookies.Itisfurtherthecaseoftheprosecution
that accused Mohd. Amir during his conversation with Chandresh
Patelrealizedthathecouldearnhandsomemoneybyassociating
himselfwithcricketbookies.Mohd.ShakeelAmiralongwithMohd.
Yahia, Syed Durrey Ahmed and Babu Sunil Chander Saxena got
arrangedameetingoflookalikesofplayersofSunriseHyderabadat
LeMeridian,PuneandParkHotel,ChennaiwithChandreshPateland
PraveenThakurandtookmoneyfromChandreshPatel.
223
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthattheseaccusedwere
found cheating other accused persons namely Chandresh Patel,

JitenderKumarJainandPraveenBhaiG.Thakkar@Pintoo.
224
Itissubmittedonbehalfofaforesaidaccusedpersons
that in the first instance FIR was registered under Section

409/420/120BIPC.Subsequently,on03.06.2013Section3and4of
MCOCAwereadded.Section409IPCwaslaterwithdrawn.Atthe
timeofargumentsofcharge,theLd.Spl.PPhadnotpressedthe
chargesunderSection420IPCagainsttheseaccused.Thefirstline
ofargumentisthattheprovisionsofMCOCAarenotattractedagainst
theseaccusedforthesimplereasonthatneitheristhereanyevidence
to show that these accused were members of Organized Crime
SyndicateofDawoodIbrahimorChottaShakeelnorthattheywere
involvedinanyunlawfulactivity.Also,thereisnoFIRagainstthese
127 of 175
accusedpersonsinregardtoevidenceonsimilaractivitywhichispre
requisiteforinvokingMCOCAAct. Also,mensreaisanecessary
ingredientandsomedirectnexusoftheaccusedwiththeunlawful
activities of the organized crime has to be established which the
prosecutionhasnotbeenabletodovizaviztheaforementioned
accusedpersons.
225
Itisfurtherarguedthatfromthecaseoftheprosecutionitself
itisevidentthatthereisnoevidencewhatsoevertoshowthatthese
fouraccusedwereapartoftheOrganizedCrimeSyndicateorhad
any nexus with them. There is no allegation of use of violence,
coercionorintimidationbyanyofthesefouraccusedincommissionof
theallegedoffence. Thecaseoftheprosecutionalsoisthatthese
fouraccusedhadcheatedChandreshPatelwhichinitselfdoesnot
makeMCOCAapplicable.Similarweretheobservationsmadebythe
Hon'bleHighCourtwhilegrantingbail.
226
Thereisallegationmadebytheprosecutionthatanyofthese
four accused had any direct nexus with the Organized Crime
Syndicate.TheonlylinkthathasbeenshownisthroughChandresh
Patel,PraveenBhaiGThakkarandJitenderKumarJain,butinorder
toshowthattheyarepartoftheOrganizedCrimesyndicate,ithadto
beshown,asalreadydiscussedabove,theywerenotonlyassociated
inthiscrimesyndicatebutthatthereexistedtherequisitemensreato
bepartoftheOrganizedCrimeSyndicate.Thisisnotmadeoutfrom
theevidencewhich hasbeencollectedbytheprosecutionagainst
them.
128 of 175
227
Theonlyallegationisthatthesefourpersonsgottogetherand
persuadedChandreshPatelandPraveenThakkarononeoccasion
andChandreshPatel,JitenderandParveenonanotheroccasionto
meetsetoflookalikesoftheplayerswhoweretoplaytheIPLcricket
matchesforthepurposeoffixingmatches.Evenifalltheallegations
areadmitted,theonlycasethatismadeoutisthatChandreshPatel,
Praveen Thakkar and Jitender Kumar Jain were cheated and
ChandreshPatelwasmadetopayRs.32lacstosomelookalikesof
theplayerswhoweretoplaythecricketmatchesinIPL6.
228
It has been rightly argued that even the prosecution has
claimedthistobeacaseofcheatingandnotanunlawfulactivityon
thepartofthesefouraccused.Thereisneitheranynexusnoristhere
anyevidencetoshowthatthesefouraccusedhadeverbeenbooked
foranoffencepunishablewithmorethanthreeyearsinthepreceding
tenyears.NooffenceunderMCOCAismadeout.
229
InsofarastheoffenceofcheatingpunishableunderSection
420IPCisconcerned,therehastobesomeevidencetoshowthat
Chandresh Patel had paid Rs.32 lacs and was cheated by being
introducedtofakeplayers.Butneitheristhereanycomplaintfrom
ChandreshPatelandothersnoristhereanyevidenceinregardto
transferofRS.32lacs.Noneoftheingredientsofcheatingasdefined
underSection415IPCaremadeoutagainstthesefouraccused.
230
Theprosecutionhasnotbeabletoestablishaprimafaciecase
underanyoftheoffenceunderMCOCAorIPCandallfouraccused
areentitledtobedischarged.
129 of 175
DeepakKumarandSandeepSharma
231
The allegations that have been made by the prosecution
against accused Deepak Kumar is that he in his confessional

statement under Section 18 MCOCA, had admitted that he was
introducedtoAjitChandiliathroughoneShamsherSinghandthathe
hadfixedAjitChandilaandhadhandedoverRs.15lakhsasadvance
moneytohim.Healsoadmittedthatthismoneyhadbeenarranged
byhimandhisassociateSandeepSharma.Itisfurtherallegedthat
witnessSdharthTrivediinhisstatementunderSection164Cr.P.Chas
alsodisclosedthatAjitChandilahadintroducedhimtoDeepakand
Sandeep and they had discussed session fixing. Thereafter, Ajit
ChandilabroughtRs.1.5lakhsapproximatelyandgaveSidhartTrivedi
Rs.50,000/ and they all went to DLF Prominard Mall in Delhi.
AccusedDeepakwasalreadyfoundpresentthere.
It is further
disclosedbySidhartTrivedithatinthefirstweekofApril2012when
IPL5gotstarted,onhissuggestion,AjitChandilawasselectedbyhis
teammanagement.Afteroneortwomatches,Ajittoldhimtomeet
DeepakandSandeepSharmawhomhemetatHotelCountryInnin
Jaipur. TheretheyaskedAjittofixsessionsinIPLmatches. Ajit
assuredthemthathewouldfixthesessionandhetookRs.1lakhfrom
them.InApril,2013,Depakhadcalledhimonhismobilephoneand
askedhimforfixingonesessionforwhichherefused.
232
TheentirecaseoftheprosecutionisthatthisaccusedDeepak
hadapproachedAjitChandilaforfixingamatchinIPL6andhad
handedoverRs.1.5lakhstohimasadvance moneyandthesaid
money had been arranged by him and his associates Sandeep
130 of 175
Sharma. It is also thecase oftheprosecution that this accused

DeepakhadevenapproachedthewitnessSidharthTrivediforfixing
thematch, butthewitnessdidnotagree. Thebestcaseagainst
accusedDeepakisthatheisafixerwhohadbeenworkingalongwith
his associate Sandeep Sharma (absconding) and had even paid
Rs.1.5 lakhs to Ajit Chandila for the said purpose. The accused
Deepakmaybeshowntohavemadeeffortstofixtheplayers,butthat
initselfdoesnotfitintoanyoffenceunderanypenalstatute. The
offenceagainsthimdoesnotshowhisconnectionwithanyofthe
bookiesorwiththeorganizedcrimesyndicate.Ifatall,heisshownto
beanindependentfixer,makingattempttofixtheplayers,butwasnot
successful. EveniftheentireevidenceagainstDeepakisadmitted,
then too no offence whatsoever is made out against him against
MCOCAasheisnotshowntobememberofcrimesyndicate.No
offenceofcheatingisalsomadeoutasnoneoftheplayersorany
witnesshasassertedthattheyhavebeendefamedbythisaccused.
RakeshOberoi
233
AccusedRakeshOberoiwasarrestedon16.05.2013fromhis
officeatRohini.Theallegationsagainsthimarethathewasafixer
whohadgivenRs.2.5lakhsincashtocricketerAjitChandilathrough
Deepak Kumar for spot fixing. Accused Ajit Chandila had also
revealedinhisdisclosurestatementthatoutofRs.20lakhsthatwere
receivedincashbyhim,Rs.5lakhswerespentandthisamountof
Rs.5lakhshadbeenreceivedbyhimfromDeepakKumarandwas
financedbyRakeshOberoi.
234
The only incriminating evidence against accused Rakesh
131 of 175
Oberoi isdisclosurestatementofAjitChandilawhichisperseno
evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever to link the accused
RakeshOberoiwithgivingofRS.2.5lakhsoutofRs.5lakhswhich
was allegedly given by Deepak Kumar to Ajit. There is no case
disclosedagainstthisaccusedRakeshOberoiunderMCOCAashe
isnotshowntohaveanyassociationwiththecorecrimesyndicate.
PraveenTakkar@Pintu
235
The case of the prosecution is that the investigations have
revealedthatheiscloseassociateofJitenderKumarJain,MannanU.
BhattandChandreshPatel. HehadtraveledwithChandreshPatel
andManan U.BhatttoJaipur,Faridabadetc.forfixingaccusedAjit
Chandila. Hisinvolvementisalsocorroboratedbytheconfessional
statementunderSection18ofaccusedJitenderKumarJainwherein
hehaddisclosedthathehadgonetoSrilankawiththeaccusedPintu.
236
MerelyaccompanyingJitenderKumarJaintoSrilankacannot
beheldtobeanevidencetoshowthathewasinvolvedinanykindof
matchfixingorwasapartoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate.Infact,
thereisnoevidencewhatsoeveragainstParveenTakkartoshowthat
hehadanyrolewhatsoeverinthisallegedorganizedcrimeofbetting
andmatchfixing.
AmitKishore,AmanandHarvinder
237
ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthataccusedAmitKishore
Chand Jasnani was a retailer of SIM no. 8928335718 which was

foundtobeusedbyaccusedSunilBhatia.Duringtheinvestigations,
132 of 175
the subscriber Deepak Subhash Gupta in whose name the said

numberhadbeenissuedwasexaminedandhestatedthathehad
never applied for the said mobile number. He admitted that the
photograph, copies of PAN card, driver license attached with the
customerapplicationformrelatedtohimandwerecorrect.Healso
stated that someone had forged his signatures on customer
applicationform.TheaccusedKishorechandinhisstatementhad
stated that Sunil Bhatia resident of Nagpur had submitted the
applicationformandonhisquestioningthatnameandthephotograph
wasofdifferentperson.HewastoldbySunilBhatiathatDeepakwas
his business associate. He ingreed gave the SIM number worth
Rs.20/foranillegalconsiderationofRs.100/toSunilBhatia.Itwas
arguedonbehalfofaccusedthathewasaninnocentcustomerand
he had not cheated or committed any fraud. SIM card had been
issuedinthecorrectnameandtherefore,itcannotbesaidthathehas
committedanyfraudorcheating.
238
TheSIMcardhasbeenissuedinthenameoftherightperson
and admittedly, the application form was duly supported by the

genuinedocument.TheaccusedhasgiventheSIMcardinthename
oftheapplicant.Ifmerely,becausethepersonwhocamewiththe
133 of 175
applicationformusedthesaidmobilephone,giveninthenameof
Deepak,itcannotbeconcludedthatKishorehadeitherdishonestlyor
fraudulentlyissuedtheSIMcardorhadcausedanywrongfullossto
Deepak,theoriginalsubscriber.Itisonlythedisclosurestatementof
JasnanithathehadtakenRs.100/insteadofRs.20/forissuingthe
SIMcardbutthatisnotadmissible.Theessentialingredientsofthere
beingdishonestorfraudulentlyintentionsofDeepakinwhosename
theSIMcardwasissued.Thereisalsonoevidencetoshowthathe
was accomplice of Sunil or in furtherance of any conspiracy or
commonintentionhehadissuedtheSIMcard.Noprimafaciecaseis
madeoutagainsttheaccusedKishoreChandJasnani.
239
SimilararetheallegationsagainstHarvinderSinghofhaving
issuedSIMcardoffakeidentity.However,theircaseisalsosimilarto
thatofAmanSachdevaandthereisnocogentevidencetoshowthat
therewasanyintentionalgivingofSIMcardtothewrongperson.No
offenceismadeoutagainstaccusedHarvinderandAmanSachdeva.
OffenceunderPublicGamblingAct
240
The crime in regard to which MCOCA was sought to be
invokedisofbettingandmatchfixing.Though,asdiscussedabove
theoffenceofMCOCAisnotmadeout,itstillneedstobeexaminedif
the accused persons who are alleged to be bookies and their
134 of 175
associatesandconduitsbeconsideredtohavecommittedanyoffence
underPublicGamblingAct.
241
Gamblingisagenericwordtodescribetheactivityofplacing
wagerorparticularoutcomesoreventstakingplace,whilebettingis
thetermusedtorefertoagreementbetweentwopartieswhereone
partymakesapredictionandlosesormakesmoney,ifhisprediction
turnsouttobetrue.Theotherpartyforfeitstheamountwagedorhas
toreturnmanytimesmore,aspertheagreement.
242
TheNewEncyclopediaBritannicadefinesgamblingasthe
bettingorstakingofsomethingofvaluewithconsciousnessofrisk
and hope of gain on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an
uncertaineventtheresultofwhichmaybedeterminedbychance.
Thetermswagerandbettingessentiallymeanmoneyorother
considerationbeingriskedonanuncertaineventorapromisetopay
money or other consideration on the occurrence of an uncertain
event.Theabovedefinitionassociatesgamblingwithbettingonthe
outcomeofthegameinwhichapersonmaywinbychanceandnot
byusingskills.
243
Fromancienttimes,seersandlawgiversofIndiahavelooked
upon gambling as a sinfulandperniciousviceanddeprecatedits

practice.
244
Inthecaseof StateofBombayvs.RMDChamarbaugwala
AIR1957SC699,itwasobservedasunder:
FromancienttimesseersandlawgiversofIndia
135 of 175
lookedupongamblingasasinfulandpernicious
viceanddeprecateditspractice.HymnXXXIV
of the Rigveda proclaims the demerit of
gambling.
Verses7,10and13say:
Dice verily are armed with goads and driving
hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing
grievous woe. They give frail gifts and then
destroythemanwhowins,thicklyanointedwith
theplayer'sfairestgood.
10Thegambler'swifeisleftforlornandwretched:
the mother mourns the son who wanders
homeless.
Inconstantfear,indebt,andseekingriches,he
gosbynightuptothehomeofothers.
11Playnotwithdice:no,cultivatethycornland.
Enjoythegain,anddeemthatwealthsufficient.
Therearethycattle,therethywife,Ogambler.So
thisgoodSavitarhimselfhathtoldme.
The Mahabharata deprecates gambling by
depictingthewoefulconditionsofthePandavas
who had gambledawaytheirkingdom. Manu
forbade gambling altogether. Verse 221
advises the king to exclude from his realm
gamblingandbetting,forthosetwovicescause
136 of 175
thedestructionofthekingdomofprinces.Verse
224 enjoinsuponthekingthedutytocorporally
punishallthosepersonswhoeithergambleorbet
orprovideanopportunityforit.Verse225calls
uponthekingtoinstantlybanishallgamblersfrom
his town. In verse 226 the gamblers are
describedassecretthieveswhoconstantlyharass
the good subjects by their forbidden practices.
Verse227callsgamblingavicecausinggreat
enmity and adviseswisemennottopractiseit
even for amusement. The concluding verse
228 provides thatoneverymanwhoaddicts
himselftothatviceeithersecretlyoropenlythe
king may inflict punishment according to his
discretion.
WhileManucondemnedgamblingoutright,
Yajnavalkya sought to bring it under State
control but he too, in verse 202(2) provided
that persons gambling with false dice or other
instrumentsshouldbebrandedandpunishedby
theking.KautilyaalsoadvocatedStatecontrol
of gambling and, as a practical person that he
was, wasnotaversetotheStateearningsome
revenue therefrom. Vrihaspati dealing with
gambling in Chapter XXVI, verse 199,
recognises that gambling had been totally
prohibited by Manu because it destroyed truth,
honesty and wealth, while other law givers
137 of 175
permitteditwhenconductedunderthecontrolof
theStatesoastoallowthekingashareofevery
stake. SuchwasthenotionofHindulawgivers
regardingtheviceofgambling.
HamiltoninhisHedaya,vol.IV,book
XLIV, includes gambling as a kiraheeat or
abomination. Hesays:Itis anabominationto
play at chess, dice or any other game; for if
anything is staked it is gambling, which is
expresslyprohibitedinKoran;orif,ontheother
hand,nothingbehazardeditisuselessandvain.
245
Gambling and Wagers have always enthralled people ever
sincethebeginningofcivilization.Moneywonistwiceassweetas
moneyearnedfromthemovie.ThecolourofMoneyperhapsmost
succinctly reflects this phenomenon. Most popular means of
gamblingwasdice,asnoticedinMahabharata.Thepassageoftime
hasseenitchangetobettingonanimalfightstosophesticatedgames
likepoker,Hash,Bingo,lotteryStockmarket,bettingonhorseracing
andnowcricket.
246
Inthemoderntimes,inundatedbymaterialismandmotivated
bymonetarygains,theconceptofgamblinginsportingeventshas
acquiredunprecedentedmomentumguaranteeingquickmoney.Plato
in The Republic remarked Honestyisforthemostpart,less
profitable than dishonesty. This statement of ancient wisdom
reflectsthepresentdayscenario,mostaptly.
138 of 175
247
AccordingtoasurveyconductedbyFICCI85%peopleagreed
that betting on sports existed in India. The enormous cash flow

involvedis evidentfromthereportbyKPMCwhichhasestimated
India'overallgamblingmarkettobe60milliondollars,whichamounts
toaround3.5%ofIndia'sgrossDomesticProduct.
248
Inmorerecenttimesmatchfixingandbettingincricketandin
IPLmatcheshasbecomethenewspaperheadlines.DelhiPolicehas
estimated that in one IPL match the total bets would be around
RS.150 crore. Staggering figure of Rs.2469,99,08,750/ has been
estimated as illegal money,generatedthroughbettingonmatches
played between 04.12.2014 till 19.03.2015 by the Enforcement
DepartmentinthechargesheetsubmittedunderMoneyLaundering
Act,inGujarat.
249
Despitethestaggeringamountofrevenuethatgamblingand
bettinghavegenerated,LawsinIndiahavebeenunfavourableinthis
area.
250
The Public Gambling Act, 1867 a Central Legislation was
enactedduringthepreindependenceera,prohibitinganygameof
chanceandprobabilitiesexceptlotteries.
251
Gambling perseisanoffencesinceitdoesnotinvolveskill
andhasbeenexplicitlyprohibitedunderthePublicGamblingActof
1867.Therefore,inpublicplaceslikeaclub,gamessuchasflashor
demandcard(mangpatta)aredisallowed.
139 of 175
252
The Public Gambling Act under Section (3) lays down
Penaltyforowningorkeeping,orhavingchargeofagaming
house.Accordingtothissection,theowneroroccupier,oranyother
personhavingtheuseorcharge,careormanagementofanyhouse,
opens,keepsorusesthesameasa'commongaminghouse'and
knowinglyorwillfullypermitsthesametobeoccupied,usedorkept
byanyotherpersonasa'commongaminghouse'shallbeliabletoa
finenotexceedingtwohundredrupees,ortoimprisonmentforany
termnotexceedingthreemonths,asdefinedintheIndianPenalCode
(45)of1860.
253
This section further lays down that whoever, advances or
furnishesmoneyforthepurposeofgamblingwithpersonsfrequenting
such 'gaminghouse' or in any manner assists in conducting, the
business of such 'common gaminghouse', in keeping it opened,
occupied,usedorkeptforthepurposeofbeingusedasacommon
gaminghouse'shall beliabletoafinenotexceedingtwohundred
rupees,ortoimprisonmentforanytermnotexceedingthreemonths.
254
AccordingtotheAct,peoplecanbeheldaccountableifthey
arefoundplayingina'gaminghouse'.A'gaminghouse'hasbeen
defined as any house, walled enclosure, room or place in which
cards,dice,tablesorotherinstrumentsofgamingarekeptorusedfor
theprofitorgainofthepersonowning,occupying,usingorkeeping
suchhouse,enclosure,roomorplace,whetherbywayofchargefor
theuseoftheinstrumentsofgaming,orofthehouse,enclosure,
roomorplace,orotherwisehowsoever.
140 of 175
255
Boththepersonowningtheplaceandtheoneindulgingin
gamblinginsuchaplace,canbearrested.
256
Thus the Public Gambling Act, makes gambling illegal i.e.
whenit'smadeabusinesstoearnaprofitoracommission.However,
Section12oftheActhasspecificallykeptcertainactivitiesoutofits
purview.Accordingtothissection,theprovisionsoftheActshallnot
applytoanygameof'mereskillwhereverplayed'.
257
Theterm'Gambling'assuchhasnotdefinedinthePublic
GamblingAct,1867.However,accordingtoEntry34ofListII,under
the Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution, 'gambling'
includesanyactivityorundertakingwhosedeterminationiscontrolled
orinfluencedbychanceoraccidentandanactivityorundertaking
whichisenteredintoorundertakenwithconsciousnessoftheriskof
winning or losing, e.g., 'prize competitions, a wagering contract,
.Where there is no actual transfer of goods but only to pay or
receivethedifferenceaccordingtothemarketpricewhichvariesfrom
thecontractprice.
258
S.RDas,ChiefJusticein StateofBombay vs. RMD
ChmarbangwalaAIR1957SC699observedthatthoseactivities
whichencourageaspiritofrecklesspropensityformakingeasygain
bylotorchance,whichleadstolossofhardearnedmoneyofthe
undiscerning and improving common man and thereby, lower his
standardoflivinganddesirehimintoachronicstateofindebtedness
andeventuallydisruptthepeaceandhappinessofhishumblehome,
couldpossiblyneverbeintendedbyConstitutiontoberaisedtothe
141 of 175
statusoftradeandcommerceorprotectedasafundamentalright.
259
It was further explained that in order to be branded as
gambling, the competition must be one in which success is

dependent entirely on chance. In order to avoid the stigma of
gambling,thecompetitionmustinvolveasubstantialdegreeuponthe
exerciseofskill.
260
TheApexCourtinthecaseofDr.K.R.LakshmananVs.
StateofTamilnadu AIR1996SC1153 afterreferringtoPublic

GamblingAct,observedthatwhilegambling,whichrestspurelyon
chance,isheldpenal,butthisActcreatesanexceptionforgameof
skill.Agameofskillwasdefinedasoneinwhichsuccessdepends
principallyuponthesuperiorknowledge,training,attentionexperience
andexpertiseoftheplayer. Itisagameinwhichelementofskill
predominatesovertheelementofchance.
261
In StateofA.P vs. K.SatyaNarayana AIR1968SC
825, game of Rummy was held to require considerable skill in

holding and discarding cards. It was held to be mainly and
predominantlyagameofskillandheldtobenotagamblingactivity
invitingpenalconsequences.
262
Likewise,theApexCourtinthecaseofK.RLakshmanan
vs. State of TamilNadu AIR1996SC1153 consideredthe

betting of horse racing and noted that racing is really a test of
acquiringspeedandstamina. Aconsiderabledegreeoftrainingis
giventohorsesbytheexperts. Italsorequiredbreeding. Lotof
142 of 175
moneyisalsoexpendedontrainingandequippingofjockeys.Thus,
theinherentcapacityoftheanimal,thecapacityofjockey,theform
and fitness of the horse are all objective facts are capable of
assessmentbyracegoers.Thus,thepredictionistheresultofmuch
knowledge,studyandobservation.Horseracingwasthus,heldtobe
agameofskillunlikepuregamesofchancelikeRouletteorLottery.
263
In 2005, in the case of Manakady Elainger Nala Sports,
Narpane Mandran vs. State ofTamilNadu 2005(1) CTC245,

MadrasHighCourthasdeclaredthatplayinggameslikechessand
carromevenonpaymentoffeestotheclubs,wouldnotamountto
gamblingunderPublicGamblingActasthegamesarepredominanty
gamesofskill.
264
NewEncyclopediaBritannica,15thEdition,Vol.5Page105
has also stated that betting on athletic contests involved the

assessmentofacontestantsphysicalcapacityandtheuseofother
evaluativeskills.
265
Thoughthereisnojudicialverdictinregardtospotofcricket,
but applying the principles laid down in the judgments discussed

about,itcanbeeasilynotedthatcricketispurelyagameofskillwhich
requiredextensivetraining,practiceandexpertiseandskillsinthe
players. Itisnotagameofchancebutofknowledge,studyand
practice,whichprimarilydependsonthespecialabilityacquiredby
training.
143 of 175
266
Cricketasagameofskillrequireshandeyecoordinationfor
throwing,catchingandhitting.Itrequiresspeed,bothduringfielding
chases and between the stumps. It requires stamina and brute
strength to wallop boundaries. It requires microscopic levels of
precisionandmentalalertnessforbatsmentofindgapsorforbowlers
toproducevarietyofstylesofdeliveries(mediumpace,fast,inswing,
outswing, offspin, legspin, googly). The sport requires strategic
mastermindsthatcanselectthemostefficientfieldingpositionsfor
pilingpressureonthebatsmen.Basedonabovedescription,cricket
cannotbedescribedanything,butasagameofskill.
267
Thegameofcricket,therefore,cannotbeheldasagameof
chance,butisagameofskillwhichisexemptedunderSection12of
PublicGamblingAct,fromthedefinitionofGambling.
268
Therefore,evenifitisacceptedthattherewasrampantbetting
goingonintheIPL6,butitisanactivityexcludedu/s12ofPublic
GamblingAct,andisnotanoffenceforwhichanyoftheaccusedcan
beheldliable.
269
Havingconcludedthattheactsofgamblinginthenatureof
bettingandmatchfixingarenotcoveredbyanystatutoryprovisionsof
anypenalcode,itwouldstillbeworththewhile tonotethatthe
efforts of Special Cell have brought to the fore the contamination
whichhascreptinthesportsespeciallyincommercialsportslikeIPL.
Ithasexposedtheconductnotonlyoftheplayers,butalsooftheso
called bookies and conduitswhohavebeenconnectedinthisbig
gameofmoneythroughmatchfixingandbetting.But,inviewofthe
144 of 175
hugevaccumoflawinthisregardintherealmoflaw,thisCourtis
helplesstoproceedfurtherunderanyofthepenalstatutes.
270
Itmaybeworththewhiletomentionherethatsimilarsituation
inregardtofixingofplayershadarisenintheyear2000VizaVizthe
famous players Azruddin and others. A preliminary inquiry was
conductedbyCBIbutitwasreportedthatnooffenceunderthepenal
statute of India was made out against these players who had
indulged in session/match fixing. Despite being aware of the
situationnolawshavebeenenactedtilldatetocoverthesesituations.
271
OnemayrefertotheobservationsmadebyHouseofLordsin
SpicerVs.Holt(1976)3AllER71thatwheninastatutedealingwith
acriminaloffenceinfringinguponthelibertyofacitizen,aloopholeis
found,itwasnotforjudgestocureit,foritsdangeroustoderrogate
fromtheprinciplethatacitizenhasarighttoclaimthathowevermuch
ofhisconductmayseentodeservepunishment,hewouldnotbe
convictedunlessthatconductfallsfairlywithinthedefinitionofcrime
ofwhereheischarged.Therefore,itisforthelegisturetointervene
andamendthelaw.
272
TheHon'bleMr.Justice,MudgalinhisIPLprobeCommittee
report has observed that the investigating agencies have been

frustratedintheirattempts,moreoftenthannot,inviewofabsenceof
appropriatesubstantiallawsonthemattersofbettingandfixingin
sports,whichisnecessaryforthelawenforcementagencytofinda
levelplayingfieldtoeradicatecorruptionincricket.
145 of 175
273
Inthiscontext,itwouldbepertinenttomentionthattheirexists
regulationsofBoardofControlForCricketinIndia.AntiCorruption
Codeisprovidedwhichprovidesthatfixingofmatchinanywayor
otherwiseinfluencinginanywayorotherwiseinfluencingproperlyor
being a part to fix or otherwise influence improperly the result,
progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event or
seekingaccepting,offeringanybribeorrewardwhichwouldinfluence
theresult,progress,conductoranyaspectofmatchorevent;and
soliciting or facilitating any participant to commit an offence as
describedabove,wouldbeguiltyofcorruption. Likewise,betting
has been stated undertheAntiCorruptionCodetomeanplacing,
accepting,layingorotherwiseenteringintoanybetwithanyother
partyinrelationtoprogress,relation,conductoranyotheraspector
anymatchorevent.Soliciting,persuading,encouraging,facilitatingor
authorisinganyotherpartytoenterintoabetforadirectorindirect
benefitofparticipantandensuringtheoccuranceofaparticularina
matchoreventwouldamounttobetting.
274
The AntiCorruption Code also covers disclosing inside
information to any person before the match or event where the

participantmightreceiveorknowthatdisclosureofsuchinformation
insuchcircumstances,canbeusedinrelationtobetting.
275
The offence of match fixing and betting and the incidental
conduct of the players/bookiesin furtheranceoftheseactivitiesis

thus,coveredundertheAntiCorruptionCodeofBoardofControlFor
CricketinIndia.Necessarypenalactionhavealreadybeensactioned
againsttheerrantplayersandotherpeople.
146 of 175
276
Therefore, this Court finds itself limiting in framing charges
against of the players on the allegations of the match fixing and

bettingforwantofappropriatelaw.Noprimafaciecaseisdisclosed.
CheatingunderIndianPenalCode,1807
277
Another aspect which needs consideration is that accused
Ashwani Aggarwal, Ramesh Vyas, Feroz, Jitender Kumar Jain,

Chandresh@Jupiteralongwithothercoaccused/otherassociates
SunilBhatt, SanjayAggarwal,AmitKumarSinghandothershave
beenlevelled withtheallegations ofmatchfixing.Thequestionis
whetherthisactofmatchfixingwouldperseamounttotheoffenceof
cheating.
MatchfixingwasdefinedbyCBIinitspreliminaryreport(in
theyear2000)as:
(i) Instances where an individual player or group of players
receivedmoneyindividually/collectivelytounderperform;
(ii) Instanceswhereaplayerplacedbetsinmatchesinwhichhe
playedthatwouldnaturallyunderminehisperformance;
(iii) Instanceswhereplayerspassedoninformationtoabetting
syndicate about team composition, probable result, pitch
condition,weather,etc.,
(iv) Instanceswheregroundsmenweregivenmoneytopreparea
147 of 175
pitchinawaywhichsuitedthebettingsyndicate;and
(v) instancesofcurrentandexplayersbeingusedbybookiesto
gain access toIndianandforeignplayerstoinfluencetheir
performanceforamonetaryconsideration.
278
Thequestioniswhetherunderplayingandnexuswithbookes
areactsofcheatingforpecuniarybenefits.Accordingtosection415
IPC,whoever,bydeceivinganyperson,fraudulently,ordishonestly
inducesthepersonsodeceivedtodeliveranypropertytoanyperson,
ortoconsentthatanypersonshallretainanyproperty,orintentionally
inducesthepersonsodeceivedtodooromittodoanythingwhichhe
wouldnotdooromitifhewerenotsodeceived,andwhichactor
omissioncausesorislikelytocausedamageorharmtothatperson
inbody,mind,reputationorproperty,issaidtocheat.Explanationto
this section says that a dishonest concealment of facts is a
deceptionwithinthemeaningofthisSection.
279
Theterm'Dishonestly'isdefinedundersection24ofIPCthat
anything done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one

personorwrongfullosstoanotherperson.Therefore,therehastobe
somewrongfullosstocausewrongfulgain.
148 of 175
280
Inthecaseofmatchfixing,whenaplayerconcealsthefactof
receivingmoneyfrompuntersorbookmakers,itcannotbetermedas
'cheating'asithastobeprovedthattherewasanintentiontocause
wrongfullosstospectators.
281
Inthepresentcase,whatiswrongfullossthatiscausedto
spectatorsisnotforthcomingexceptthattheyfeltdisgustedtoknow
that some players had not performed according to their capacity.
Thereisnowrongfullosspersecausedtoanyparty.
282
Furthermore, cheating is not an offence, which cannot be
committed inrem, ratheritmustbeagainstaspecificperson. The

deceptiononthepublic ingeneralisoflettingthemthinkthatthe
matchisnotfixed.Wheretheoffenceisonewherethepublicatlarge
iseffected,thewordsusedinthestatuteispublicorpeopleingeneral
andreferenceisnotofaspecificvictim.Also,thissectionrequires
transferofpropertybetweentheaccusedandthevictim.Inthecase
ofmatchfixing,thereisnosuchtransferandtherefore,itcannotbe
saidthattheoffenceof420IPCismadeout.
FinalConculsion
283
Fromtheforgoingdetaileddiscussion,itcanbeconcludedthat
149 of 175
evenifentireevidenceofprosecutionisaccepted,thentooitisnot
established that there exists a core crime syndicate of Dawood
ChhotaShakeelwhohavebeneninduldingintheorganizedoffenceof
bettingandmatchfixingandalsodealingwithmoneysogenerated
throughhawala.Theprosecutionhasnotbeenabletoestablishthat
thereisanycontinuingunlawfulactivityofcrimesyndicateasithas
notbeenabletomeettherequirementoftherebeingmorethanone
FIRinpreceding10yearsagainstthesyndicate.Nonexusorlink
betweenvariousaccusedwithDr.JavedChutaniaspartoforganized
grouphasbeenestablished.Also,theoffenceinrelationtowhich
MCOCAissoughttobeinvoked,pertainstobettingandmatchfixing,
whichasdiscussedabovedoesnotfitinanyPenalstatute.Allthe
necessary ingredients to establish a prima facie case under the
provisionsofMCOCAisnotmadeout. Thebestcasecouldhave
beenunderPublicGamblingAct,butthatalsoisnotprima facie
establishedfromtheevidenceplacedonrecordbytheprosecution.
Theoffenceofcheatingisalsonotmadeoutprimafacie,evenifthe
entireevidenceofprosecutionisadmittedwithoutformalproof.
284
Inthegivensituation,boundasthiscourtiswiththelawofthe
land, it is contrained to conclude that no prima facie case under

MCOCAoranyotherPenalstatuteisdisclosedagainstanyofthe
accusedpersons,whoareallentitledtobedischarged.
285
They are accordingly discharged. Bail bond, surety bond
cancelled.
Filebeconsignedtorecordroom.
ANNOUNCED In the open Court
today on 25th Day of July, 2015
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

ASJ-01/New Delhi District
150 of 175
Patiala House Courts

New Delhi
151 of 175

IPL Spot Fixing Case, Delhi Sessions Court Discharge Order

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPL Spot Fixing Case, Delhi Sessions Court Discharge Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTHECOURTOFMS.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

A charge sheet u/s 419/420/120B IPC and section 3/4 of

arrestedaccused,thecharge sheethasbeenfiled u/s3and4

Facts in brief, are that the Central Investigating Agency

working under Ministry of Home Affairs shared some secret

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

The intercepted calls and technical surveillance of mobile

phones of Tinku revealed that he was in constanttouch with two

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

Further investigations and mobile phone intercepts revealed

beof Manan, who inturnwasintouchwith Jiju@PokkenJiju

Rocky @ Raj and one Sandeep Sharma who were found to be

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

In the cricket match played between Rajasthan Royals and

In the intervening night of 15/16 May, 2013 police team

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

fixers namely, Kiran Dhole and Sunil Bhatia were arrested. On

thathealongwithone Amir,hadattemptedtoinfiltrate anotherIPL

On 01.06.2013, it was revealed that the mobile phone no.

923332064488 belongs to Dawood Ibrahim Chota Shakil and

On 08.06.2013 the investigation revealed that accused

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

Ramesh Bajranglal, a major bookie was closely associated with

It was thus submitted in the charge sheet, that the

investigations have revealed the spot/session fixing activities that

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

The charge sheet was filed in the court on 30.07.2013.

Documents were supplied to all the accused under Section 207

Themainargumentaddressedby Ld.SpecialPP wasfrom

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

atleast two FIR in the preceding 10 years against each of the

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

placed on Mohd. Farrukh Abdul Gaffur and Ors. v. State of

Also, Dawood and Chota Shakeel are wanted accused in

different charge sheets filed by the CBI in connection with serial

The core syndicate comprises of Dawood, Chota

Shakeel, Javed Chutani (Dubai), Salman (Pakistan), Firoz

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

there exists a crime syndicateandalltheaccusedmembersare

forensicevidenceprimafacieshowsthatitwas Jupiter whowasin

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

It is thus, argued that there is sufficient material on

The mainargument thatisbeingaddressedonbehalfofall

the accused persons is that the provisions of MCOCA are not

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

What is to be considered at this stage is whtehr the

Whileexercisingpowers underSection227 oftheCodeof

Criminal Procedure, for considering the question of framing of

368 laid down the principles for consideration of charge. It was

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

Inthecase of GovindSakharamUbhe v. Stateof

State Vs. Ashwani Aggarwal & Ors.

Under this Act, it is the membership of a organized crime

syndicate which has been made punishable independent of the

Section 3 Sub Section (i) provides for punishment for