REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER, BCCI

91. In the further statement of Manoj Prabhakar recorded by the CBI on 4th July, 2000 regarding his mobile phone printout which disclosed a number of calls to known bookies/punters including Sanjeev Chawla, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara, Rattan Mehta etc, Manoj Prabhakar stated that he had contacted them for the purpose of investigating match fixing allegations. He further stated that he knew Sanjeev Chawla since the latter visited the gym at Hotel Park Royal and Prabhakar was looking for an overseas partner for his cosmetics business and the telephone calls to Sanjeev Chawla through the cell phone were in that connection only. Prabhakar told CBI that Rajesh Kalra is his friend and prints brochures for the cosmetics business of Prabhakar. He further stated that he also knew Sunil Dara, as he used to visit frequently the gym at Hotel Park Royal. Once or twice, he had asked Prabhakar about the outcome of cricket matches and he had given his opinion to Sunil Dara. Prabhakar also told the CBI that he knew Anand Saxena very well and had attended a few parties with him. Anand Saxena, on some occasions, had asked Prabhakar to introduce cricket players to him but Prabhakar had refused do so.

92. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated that he did not tell the CBI that his telephone calls to Sanjeev Chawla, Rajesh Kalra, Sunil Dara, Rattan Mehta etc. were for the purpose of investigating match fixing allegations. The fact is that he did so only with Rattan Mehta, who disconnected the call, when he knew that Prabhakar was speaking to him. This happened only once. Sanjeev Chawla had known Prabhakar because of their visits to gym at Hotel Park Royal, New Delhi, where Prabhakar joined only in 1999. Sanjeev Chawla had telephoned Prabhakar only on a couple of occasions from London. The calls were not in connection with cricket but in connection with the cosmetics business as Prabhakar had given him a few samples and sought his help to export cosmetics. Sanjeev Chawla telephoned him because in the samples, Prabhakar had given the MRP in Rupees whereas Sanjeev Chawla wanted to know as to how much the cost would be in US $. Prabhakar added that he did not attend parties with Anand Saxena. He only attended a birthday party given by Anand Saxena on the occasion of the birthday of his child. I am of the view that this version given by Prabhakar before me contains a lot of half truths.

93. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Prabhakar had stated that he was introduced to Mukesh Kumar Gupta by Ajay Sharma sometime in 1990 and Prabhakar knew him as John and not as Mukesh Kumar Gupta or MK. Prabhakar had met MK 5-6 times only, but used to speak to MK. on the telephone. Prabhakar had seen MK. abroad also. MK. had given about Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 30,000 for each piece of information about cricket matches only when the information was of use to MK.

94. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar had stated the he did not say as above regarding MK. Prabhakar also added that he had not received any such amounts from MK. In the statement recorded by CBI, Prabhakar had stated that on being asked whether MK had given him money to buy Maruti Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour in 1990, Prabhakar had stated that he had purchased the Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour but had paid for it himself. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated "I never had a Gypsy. After returning from England tour, I had bought only a Maruti standard car which was financed by Escorts, where I was then working. Escorts had issued a cheque in favour of the dealer for the price of the car. Against the said loan, Escorts used to deduct about Rs. 1,800 per month out of my salary. When I sold the car in 1993-94, I issued a cheque in favour of Escorts for the balance amount of the loan. I shall try to trace the available papers in this regard and make them available to you at Delhi within three or four days". I may mention that Prabhakar has not handed over to me till now the papers pertaining to the Maruti standard car.

95. Regarding the other allegations against Manoj Prabhakar, I shall set out my conclusion at the end of this analysis. In respect of the Gypsy allegation however, CBI has not got any particulars about the Gypsy car, which it could have done easily. In such matters, when the investigating agency fails to conduct enquiry, which it can do easily, the benefit of the absence of evidence always accrues in favour of the suspected person. It is no doubt true that Prabhakar has also not handed over to me the papers of the Maruti car which he claims to have purchased. Prabhakar has asserted that he never had a Gypsy. Yet, in the absence of any evidence in this regard being available in the CBI report, I hold that this particular allegation relating to Maruti Gypsy is not proved against Prabhakar.

96. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Prabhakar has stated that he did not introduce Dean Jones to MK. after a festival match in Sri Lanka in the early-nineties. Prabhakar was in the same flight as MK. but it was purely 'accidental'. Prabhakar also denied before CBI that MK had ever visited his house at Ghaziabad. Prabhakar accepted having made a phone call to Gus Logie at MK's request but Logie refused to do anything for MK. Prabhakar accepted before CBI that he had introduced Mark Waugh to MK in Hong Kong during a six-a-side tournament. Prabhakar also admitted before CBI that he had introduced Brian Lara, Salim Malik and Alec Stewart to MK. Before CBI, Prabhakar denied having introduced Arvind d' Silva and Ranatunga to MK. Prabhakar further stated before CBI, "for these introductions I received money only once or twice. M.K. used to pay only when introduction to foreign players resulted in a profitable relationship. MK used to pay money through one of his servants."

97. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar has stated that most of what is appearing in the CBI statement as above is incorrect. He stated that he had tried to make a call to Gus Logie at MK's request to find out the weather but the call did not go through. I do not believe the statement of Prabhakar.

98. Prabhakar also stated before me that during the Hong Kong tournament, he introduced some persons to some others but does not recall whom he introduced to whom. Prabhakar stated that therefore, it is incorrect that he introduced March Waugh, Brian Lara, Salim Malik, Alec Stewart to MK and that he had never stated so to the CBI. He added before me that, "I have never received any money at any time from MK for any purpose. However, on a couple of occasions, MK had sent Diwali gifts through his servants. This happened during 1991-92".

99. In the statement recorded by the CBI, Prabhakar accepted having told MK that Delhi would lose the Ranji Trophy quarter final match of 1991 between Delhi and Bombay, since some of the Delhi players were scheduled to play league cricket in England, which was clashing with further Ranji Trophy engagements. Before CBI, Prabhakar denied having received any money from MK for the said information. Prabhakar confirmed this in the statement recorded by me.

100. In the last paragraph of the further statement by the CBI, Prabhakar stated that he was "very friendly" with Tipu Kohli, a punter, and he used to call Prabhakar to get his opinion and information about cricket matches. Prabhakar also accepted that he knew Mashaal, a bookie of Bombay.

101. In the statement recorded by me, Prabhakar stated that he had known Tipu Kohli only during the past two years as he visits the gym at Hotel Park Royal. He does talk to Prabhakar about cricket matches. Prabhakar said that so far as Mashall is concerned, CBI has mentioned his name at the end of the statement of Prabhakar, whereas he had given his name to CBI with reference to Mashaal meeting him with Prakash Kelkar during his hotel stay at Bombay. Prabhakar stated before me, "It is not correct that I know Mashaal". Mashaal had met Prabahakar only once in Bombay in 1994. In the CBI report the evidence in respect of Manoj Prabhakar has been analysed at pages 103-105.

102. CBI has stated that MK was introduced to Manoj Prabhakar in 1990 by Ajay Sharma, a fact endorsed by both Ajay Sharma and Manoj Prabhakar before CBI. No doubt in the statement of Ajay Sharma recorded by me, he has denied having done so. Manoj Prabhakar however stated before me that he had known MK only as John and not as Mukesh Kumar Gupta @ MK.

103. CBI has relied on the statement of MK who had stated before CBI that he had paid Rs. 40,000 to Prabhakar before India's tour to England. MK also told CBI that he had promised to pay Prabhakar the money equivalent to the cost of a Maruti Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour if Prabhakar provides information about weather, pitch, team composition etc during the tour. MK also stated that Prabhakar underperformed at his behest in one of the tests in England, which ended in a draw. CBI has not however collected the evidence in this regard. In fact, CBI has not furnished the statistics of any test match, Ranji Trophy match or one-dayer, which CBI ought to have done.

104. MK further stated before CBI that he kept up his promise and financed Prabhakar's Gypsy with wide tyres after the England tour. Prabhakar admitted before CBI of his having purchased a Gypsy after the England tour, but denied that it was financed by M.K. CBI has concluded that "However, MK's statement in this respect appears to be more credible in view of the specific reference to Gypsy with 'wide tyres' and also the fact that Prabhakar purchased this Gypsy after the England tour.

105. In so far as the allegation relating to the Gypsy vehicle is concerned, I have already opined earlier that the said allegation is not supported by evidence which could have been collected by CBI and therefore the said allegation stands not proved. 106. In respect of the allegation of Rs. 40,000 allegedly paid by MK to Manoj Prabhakar before India's tour to England in 1990, Prabhakar had denied the same. He also added "CBI did not even ask me if this part of the statement of MK was correct or not". In taking this technical plea, Prabhakar does have a point. CBI ought to have questioned Prabhakar regarding this allegation but failed to do so. Due to this, I hold that this allegation stands not proved.

107. Regarding the England visit wherefrom he reportedly gave information to M.K. and also under-performed at the behest of M.K., Prabhakar stated "the test has not been identified. This allegation by MK is false. I did not under-perform in any match in England. CBI never have questioned me in this aspect."

108. It is a fact that CBI did not question Prabhakar regarding the aforesaid allegation made by MK, which they ought to have done. Consequently, I hold this allegation also as not proved.

109. CBI has mentioned that MK had stated before CBI that Prabhakar had 'sold' MK information about the Ranji Trophy quarter final match in 1991 between Delhi and Bombay. CBI has also stated that Prabhakar, in his statement had accepted that he had provided information that Delhi would lose the match but denied before CBI of having received any money from MK. CBI has concluded, "it is, however, difficult to believe that Prabhakar provided this 'information' without accepting any returns". In the statement recorded by me also Prabhakar admitted that he had casually told M.K. that no Delhi players appeared to be interested in winning the match. Prabhakar stated that he had not 'sold' the said information to MK and that he had not received payments therefor. When Prabhakar knew that MK nay, John as now pleaded by Prabhakar, was a bookie, he had no business to convey such inside information to M.K. This was therefore misconduct by him irrespective of the fact whether he had sold the information or given it for free. I, therefore, hold him guilty of misconduct in this regard.

110. M.K. further stated before CBI that during the one-day series in Australia, just prior to the World Cup 1992, Prabhakar had provided specific information about two one-dayers against Australia in which M.K. made good money on the basis of Prabhakar's information. Prabhakar has denied having done so. More importantly, he stated before me "CBI did not even question me regarding this allegation".

Back  Next

Mail Cricket Editor