Evidence against Sreesanth 038; Co: Some cash,some calls and dots police are yet to join

The polices special cell said they had overheard in March a conversation between bookies and members of the underworld,following which more than 100 hours of phone conversations were recorded. We were waiting for them to commit the mistake and arrested them after the match, the commissioner said.

Of the three cricketers,Chandila is the only one against whom police have cited the evidence of phone intercepts of a direct conversation with bookies. He allegedly negotiated on behalf of Chavan too. Conversations attributed to Sreesanth were with alleged bookie Jiju Janardhanan,a friend from his childhood.

The money seized includes Rs 20 lakh from the home of an aunt of Chandila ; the family says it came from the sale of ancestral property. From Sreesanth police seized Rs 5 lakh,part of an alleged instalment of Rs 10 lakh. Police say they have evidence of where he spent the rest but have not yet explained how they will establish that the money did come from bookies. And Chavan was arrested before he received the money he had supposedly been promised.

We are still in the process of conducting investigations and making recoveries, said special commissioner of police special cell S N Srivastava.

A look at the police case against the three cricketers:

SREESANTH

Bills and old friendship

In their press conference,the police said Sreesanth and the other arrested cricketers had been in regular touch with bookies. In Sreesanths case,they have named only one Janardhanan. Sreesanths childhood friend has also worked with him as his secretary and driver. The police say Sreesanths deals were fixed by Janardhanan.

Sreesanth and Jiju Janardhanan are close friends; they travelled together and had the same travel plans. We have proof of that in the form of hotel records, says S N Srivastava. There was no need for Sreesanth to discuss spot-fixing with bookies. The bookies had contacted Janardhanan.

According to the police,Sreesanth had fixed his second over in Rajasthan Royals May 9 match against Kings XI Punjab in Mohali. Police showed footage of Sreesanth bowling with a towel tucked on his hip,which DCP special cell Sanjeev Yadav said was a signal to bookies that this would be the fixed over.

The recorded conversation the police cite was between Janardhanan and another bookie,with the former allegedly saying Sreesanth would concede 14 or more in that over. Sreesanth ended up conceding 13; police say he later asked Janardhanan over the phone if they would still be paid.

Srivastava said the conversation they intercepted has Janardhanan and bookies discussing what Sreesanth should do. Sreesanth did exactly the same things on the field as discussed between Janardhanan and the bookies, Srivastava said. He used a towel and gave away the runs. Later,he also told Jiju that he had deliberately bowled a no-ball but the umpire failed to spot it. What more evidence do you need?

Police say Sreesanth,despitehaving conceded fewer runs than agreed,was paid Rs 10 lakh,and that it was the first instalment towards Rs 40 lakh. They have recovered Rs 5 lakh from him and say he spent the rest throwing three parties at a five-star hotel in Jaipur,buying jeans worth Rs 2.5 lakh and gifting a Blackberry each to two women friends. They claim to have recovered bills and the two Blackberrys but have not specified how they can link the spending to the alleged payment. The transactions having allegedly been done through hawala,there is no record of that either.

Under the Evidence Act,phone intercepts can only support the main evidence, concedes a senior police officer. Moreover,police are yet to come up with any conversation between Sreesanth and any bookie other than Jiju Janardhanan.

ANKEET CHAVAN

Money that never arrived

On May 15,the day before his arrest,Chavan had allegedly bowled a fixed over during the Royals match in Mumbai. In his case,too,police are yet to come up with intercepts of any call between him and a bookie. They say they have intercepted a conversation between a bookie and Ajit Chandila,whom they describe as having negotiated for Chavan. The latter conceded 15 runs in his second over,allegedly part of the deal.

Chavan gave away the runs as discussed in the conversation, Srivastava said. He also signalled to the bookies. The evidence is very concrete and we have all the recordings.

Chandila allegedly asked for Rs 60 lakh for Chavan,who would give away 13 or more. Chavan is the one cricketer in whose case there isnt even a money trail to show. Police say Chavan and Chandila were arrested before the former could get the agreed payment. We arrested him as soon as the match was over, Srivastava said.

Chavan was hit for 6,2 and 6 on the first three balls in his second over,crossing the 13 allegedly agreed.

Chavan was granted interim bail for his wedding during the weekend.

AJIT CHANDILA

Money found,but whose?

Chandila is the player against whom the police claim to have collected the most evidence. They say he had been in touch with bookies for the past one year and claim to have an intercept of a call in which Chandila promised a bookie he would give away 13 or more runs in his second over against Pune Warriors in Jaipur on May 5. According to the police,Chandila was to signal with his wrists before that over,but he apparently forgot to do so though he did concede 14. The police say they have recordings of a conversation during which bookies are supposed to have abused Chandila for failing to signal.

The alleged deal was for Rs 40 lakh,out of which police say Rs 20 lakh was paid. Five days after the press conference,the police recovered that much from a cricket kit at Chandilas aunts house in Palwal,leading to the family giving its own version of the source.

Police have recovered bills from a Delhi optician and a Mumbai mall,the latter for a watch and two pairs of jeans,and say all of these were paid with bookie Chandresh Patels debit card not in itself an act of cheating.

Police say Chandila had received Rs 12 lakh for last years IPL from arrested bookie Sunil Bhatia. He did not,however,figure in the playing XI and police say he repaid Bhatia with three cheques,each for Rs 4 lakh. Two of these bounced,say police,adding they have recovered both.

HITS amp; MISSES

What police have,and don8217;t

There is no record yet of the financial losses suffered by any party in the case of cheating and criminal breach of trust. A complaint filed by the Rajasthan Royals management after the arrests says the company invested significant time,money and resources,which have all gone to waste,but it does not put a figure to the loss.

They have cheated the public at large. If any person had known beforehand that there was spot-fixing,no one would have gone to see the match, Srivastava said. We also have complaints from two spectators. The police had requested the public to come forward; these two are so far the only ones to have come forward.

The police say they have CCTV footage of the players with bookies. Alleged bookies Janardhanan,Amit Singh and Bhatia are former cricketers with access to the IPL players. The police also cite travel details of bookies such as Chandresh,who they say met the players at the match venues.

Police say the organised crime syndicate was controlled from abroad,but have arrested only the three Royals players the IPL has 234 in nine teams. The police concede there is no concrete evidence against other players.

Cricketer Siddharth Trivedi,a key witnesses who has made a statement against the three cricketers in front of a magistrate,had himself allegedly been contacted by bookies since 2010 but did not inform anyone earlier. The police have made him a prosecution witness but not arrested him because he had a minimal role in the racket.

Booked Under8230;

What

MCOCA,the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,was passed in that state in 1999,then focusing on underworld ganglords and now used for accused in pettier crimes too.

When

MCOCA can be invoked when any one of the accused has two or more previous pending cases with chargesheets filed. These cases need not be related to the MCOCA case. In the current case,the accused include Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Shakeel,allowing police to invoke it for the cricketers too.

Why

Police invoke MCOCA because:

The onus is on the accused to prove his innocence,while IPC puts the burden on the prosecution

30 days custody can be sought; IPC maximum is 15 days

A confession before a deputy CP or an SP can be used as evidence during the trial

180 days to file a chargesheet; IPC limit is 60 days

Prosecution can draw an adverse inference against an accused if he is involved in other cases. Under criminal law,guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt based on specific evidence