Nation Current Affairs 11 May 2016 Chennai: Loopholes i ...

Chennai: Loopholes in IPL betting scam chargesheet

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published May 11, 2016, 6:27 am IST
Updated May 11, 2016, 7:22 am IST
Court questions investigation officer in IPL-betting scam.
The judicial officer asked the DSP whether he made any attempt to examine Gurunath Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh, who were shown as key accused in the IPL match fixing case.
 The judicial officer asked the DSP whether he made any attempt to examine Gurunath Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh, who were shown as key accused in the IPL match fixing case.

Chennai: Finding glaring loopholes in the charge sheet filed by CB-CID in connection with multi-crore IPL betting scam, the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, has directed the police to explain the role played by Gurunath Meiyappan and his association in the scam. The magistrate, S. Prakash, has pointed out that in the charge sheet several confessions of the same accused contradicted one another.

When the matter came up for hearing, the investigation officer, DSP, Venkat, was present. After perusing the charge sheet, the magistrate posed several questions to the police official pertaining to the scam and sought his opinion on why the investigation was silent with regard to passing of inside information about IPL matches to bookies, the relationship or contacts between Gurunath Meiyappan, (who was charged by Mumbai police as an accused in IPL match fixing case) and Vikram Agarwal, an accused in the scam.

 

The judicial officer asked the DSP whether he made any attempt to examine Gurunath Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh, who were shown as key accused in the IPL match fixing case.

He asked whether the police investigated anything on the call detail record (CDR) of Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh as well as comparing data with CDR particulars of the accused during the IPL seasons. “The role played by IPS officer - Q branch SP G. Sampath Kumar in this scam to be explained. Is there any probe on these lines by the investigation officer? If not, state why?”

 

The court wanted to know whether any attempt was made to collect evidence, material, in respect of interrogation of Kitty alias Utham Jain by the erstwhile investigation officer, Sampath Kumar; whether investigation officer made any attempt to collect interrogation particulars from Q-Branch police in respect of criminal case pursuant to Kitty and Vikram.

The court directed the Inspector to explain the details about the steps taken pursuant to the scams in the context of Mudgal Committee Report.

The  Investigation officer has been directed to clarify the probe with regard to the confession of accused Harish Bajaj.

 

After reading the questions in the court, the DSP informed the court that Mumbai police registered a case against Meiyappan and hence another case need not be registered in Chennai. The DSP sought time to file reply. Following this, the magistrate directed him to file a detailed report and adjourned the matter to May 24.

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT