Team no.

AIM-15
4th AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE

HIGH COURT OF GODAM

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2016

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GODAM

ALTAF ASLAM AND OTHERS...PETITIONER

v.
BOARD OF CRICKET CONTROL OF GODAM.RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of abbreviations................3
Legislation..5
Case laws........................................6
Books .7
Legal database....7
Statement of Jurisdiction8
Statement of Facts.....9-13
Statement of Issues...14
Summary of Arguments...15
Arguments Advanced.16- 22
I .Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable?.....................................................16
II. Whether B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very
beginning?................................................................................................................................18
IIIi. Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of match-fixing and spotfixing?.......................................................................................................................................20
IIIii.1.Whether

Hank

Jefferson

and

Liam

Jackson

were

guilty

of

cheating......21
Prayer of Relief........................................................................................23

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC

ACUT
AIR

All India Reporter

Art.

Article

B.C.CGo

Board of Cricket Council of Godam

BCCI

Board of Cricket Council of India

BOD

Board of Directors

Bom

Bombay

CAI

Central Agency of Investigation

Cal.

Calcutta

CAS

Court of Arbitration of Sports

CBI

Central Bureau of Investigation

COM

Committee

Comp LJ

Company Law Journal

DEL

Delhi

DLT

Delhi Law Times

ED

Enforcement Directorate

Govt.

Government

GPL

Godam Premier League

HC

High Court

Honble

Honourable
3

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

i.e

That is

ICC

International Cricket Council

IFC

International Federation of Cricket

Indlaw

Indian Law

JT

Judgement Today

KR

Kondra Ranges

MK

Mandeva Kites

Mum

Mumbia

NCERT

National Council of Educational Research

and Training

Ori.

Orissa

PIL

Public Interest Litigation

PMLA

Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Raj.

Rajasthan

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Reports

SCW

Supreme Court Weekly

Sec.

Section

u/a

Under Article

v.

Versus

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

LEGISLATIONS
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 415
Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person
so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain
any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is
said to cheat.
Section 418
Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest
offender is bound to protect.-Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby
to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating
relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
Section 120A
Definition of criminal conspiracy. When two or more per-sons agree to do, or cause to be
done,
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agree-ment is designated a criminal
conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or
more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is
the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
2. International Cricket Council Anti-Corruption Code
Article 8.2.2.
If the decision exonerates the Participant, then the decision may be publicly reported only
with the consent of the Participant. The IFC shall use reasonable efforts to obtain such
consent, and (if consent is obtained) shall publicly disclose the decision in its entirety or in
such redacted form as the Participant may approve.
3. Prevention of Money Laundering Act Section 4
5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

CASE LAWS
1. A . C . Muthiah v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr.. ( 28
. 04 . 2011 - SC ) JT2011(5)SC286, 2011(5)SCALE68, (2011)6SCC617
2. Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT(1991) 4 SCC 578 = AIR 1992 SC 76
3. Cricket Association of Bihar and another v. Board of Control for Cricket in India and
another ...2015 Indlaw SC 44, (2015) 3 SCC 251, AIR 2015 SC
3194.
4. Hiken Naresh Shah v Board of Control for Cricket in India......2015 Indlaw MUM 868
5. Maganlal and Motilal(1889) 14 Bom 115
6. Ms Dona Dhand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1991 Raj. 84
7. Organizer, Dehri C.D. and C.M. Union Limited, Rohtas v State of Bihar and others.
2014 Indlaw PAT 65; AIR 2014 PAT 67; 2014 (4) CTC 481
8. Punia Biswal v. Divisional Forest Officer........ AIR 1990 Ori. 219
9. Rahul Mehra and Anr v .Union of India and Ors....................2004 Indlaw DEL
813; 2005 (4) CompLJ 268; 2004 (114) DLT 323
10. Santosh Sood v. Gajender Singh..AIR 2010 SC 593:2009 AIR SCW 7165: (2009) 7
SCC 314.
11. Shyamal Ghosh v. Union of India....AIR 1998 Cal. 199,
1997 Indlaw Cal. 216.
12. Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Delhi and District Cricket Association.2015
Indlaw CIC 60
13. Zee Telefilms v Union of India...(2005) 4 SCC 649

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law with constitutional law, 6th edition (volume 1)
Lexis Nexis
2. Jain M P, Indian Constitutional Law with constitutional law, 6th edition (volume 2)
Lexis Nexis
3. De D J, The Constitution of India, 3rd edition (volume 1)
4. De D J, The Constitution of India, 3rd edition (volume 2)
5. Pandey Dr.J.N. The Constitutional Law of India, 50th edition
6. Bakshi P.M., The Constitution of India, 13th edition
7. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, 27th edition 1992
8. Tope T.K., Constitutional Law of India, (1982 edn.), 501

LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. WestLaw
4. Lexis Nexis

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Honourable High Court of Godam has the jurisdiction in this matter under
Article 226 of the Constitution of Godam
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.

All of which is most respectfully submitted

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS (COMPROMIS)

1. Godam Premier League (hereinafter referred to as GPL), in 20-20 format was few
months away from its 7th edition in Burgan. Board of Cricket Control of Godam
(hereinafter referred to as B.C.CGo) is the parent body responsible for all the
activities related to cricket in Godam subcontinent.
2. Despite of smooth launching in 2009, GPL did face some instability in the 5 th edition,
2013 where a club named as Kondra Ranges (KR) was found guilty of match fixing
and spot fixing. KR was owned by a media tycoon Takishi who also owned an
airline Company named Pace Airways which is also official partner of the
competition. Every time any allegation popped up, it was always subdued by
explanations from Takishi and clean chit was given to KR by B.C.CGo. Xerxese
Morennio, was the Commissioner of GPL and business development manager of
B.C.CGo. Xerxese and Takishi were batch mates from the same business school.
3. KR was questioned for its irregularities, as in matters related to submission of
franchise money, misconduct shown by its players, involvement in offences like
match fixing and spot fixing. In 5th edition for the Chairman of B.C.CGo, Niladris1
was dethroned and Don Makofusa came to power.
4. For the first time allegations on KR were taken seriously. Thereafter notice was issued
and KR was asked to explain the violation of certain IFCs Anti-Corruption Code
protocols2 thus was banned by IFC to take part in any activity related to cricket. Apart
from it a penalty of Rs 60 crore as a fine was imposed on it which was to be submitted
within a period of 4 months. KR also had an option either to go into appeal to the
CAS3, within 21 days from the order but in spite of it, KR chose to serve the
punishment and paid the sum within a month. KR came up with a press release
withdrawing its contention from GPL and declaring dissolution. Takishi was also
banned by IFC, continued as the official partner.
5. Xerxese appointed Peter Woodford as coach for KR in 5th edition. Woodford, a highly
envied batsman and never had a clean image. The appointment was highly criticised
by the media over which Xerxese answered that the allegations were made but none
were proved and, Woodford is a person who is much needed by the game thus GPL is
1 Takishi was related to both Niladris and Don Makofusa. Niladris was his father in law and Don Makofusa
was his first cousin.
2 Certain players were involved in bypassing security measures on and off the grounds, skipping WADA
checkups and giving abrupt statements to media.
3 Court of Arbitration of Sports.

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

in this regard is fortunate to have his presence. A news article was published by a
senior journalist Altaf Aslam according to which GPL was dwelling under the shades
of demons of match-fixing and spot-fixing and levels of corruption are absolutely
high.
6. After KR was banned by IFC, shocking incident took place. Peter Woodford was
found dead in his hotel room, the dead body was found naked with apart from his
luggage, laptop, 2 mobile phones, and very expensive watches were recovered. Before
his death he made several calls, out of which some were made to his relative including
calls made to Zia Kuriet and Xerxese.
7. For the 6th edition, a new team named as Mandeva Kites (MK) entered as a new
franchise. The team involved 8 players who were ex-players of KR including the
captain of KR. The majority shares were held by Tutis Olanga 4. The major share
owners of K.R. were the sweat equity share holders of the new Mandeva Kites i.e.,
Zia Kuriet5, Kaifi Shaik6, and Gogo Morrenio7.
8. MK in the 6th edition lost the semi-finals by 95 runs against Canoro Bulls. The same
situation had arose twice in the seasons play offs, where MK lost matches due to low
run after fall of all the wickets involving mostly run outs. This so called ambiguity
somewhere showed some malpractice on behalf of MK. The questions related to
transfer of liability on MK which made them to answer the bar imposed on KR
because the new club MK was a result of manipulation of the existing system. MK
answered the speculations saying that the club is a new entity, with a new
constitution, with a new article of association and with a different governing board of
directors, so liability by all means should not be imposed on us.
9. Two players of MK, Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of matchfixing and spot fixing on the directions of the bookie named as Abu Zawahar. Action
was taken by the Anti-Corruption unit of IFC. B.C.CGo was directed to conduct board
inquiries against the players and the team. Upon the directions of IFC, B.C.CGo
ordered the management of MK to show cause as to why the players got involved in
such an anti-sport activity. MK never showed any cause but submitted the resignation
of these 2 players with an explanation that the resignation is our way to show protest

4
5
6
7

Step son of the IFC Chief Putul Tutis Olanga.

wife of Rajgopala who was a member of parliament and a renowned politician.
owner of Betshet a betting portal incorporated in Netherlands where betting is legal.
cousin of Xerxes Morrenio the GPL commissioner.

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

against the speculation made by the governing council on their honesty. Both the
players claimed themselves to be incorruptible.
10. The players filed an appeal with Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC challenging the
expulsion. An article written by Altaf Aslam in which he revealed himself to be a
good friend of Peter Woodford and declared that the 2 players Hank and Liam
admitted that they were guilty of match-fixing and spotfixing but simultaneously
made and accusation that they were the vulnerable sentinels and innocent despite of
being guilty. The players stated that GPL is a venture undertaken by celebrity
politicians and government officials thus huge money wealth and fame is involved,
thus, at any point they did not feel safe taking the help of public official and hence
they came to Altaf Aslam. They confessed that GPL has three categories of players.
These two players were Category 3 (players selected from state or club team) players.
11. They were forced to engage into malpractices for which they received huge sums of
money. Survival not only became their need but also a qualification because of which
they can achieve the ultimate goal i.e., to play for the country and going against the
management will be a foolish action. They confessed that everybody including
B.C.CGo and Xerxese were the part of this misendeavour. They stated that they have
taken the stand not to escape from the liability but to make the people and fans of
cricket aware of this injustice against them.
12. Later, the people compelled Rajgopala to resign as from being the Minister of
Information Broad Casting. B.C.CGo denied all the allegations as baseless and more
of a publicity stunt to tarnish the image of GPL and upon Peter Woodford case stated
that a detailed investigation had already been done and bringing these baseless facts
would do no good as the case had already been decided.
13. Upon the confession of Hank and Liam, who imposed liability not only upon Xerxese
Morrenio for malpractices but upon this, B.C.CGo gave vague and self-contradictory
statements stating that it had always taken strict and lawful steps as and when
required, although it never took any action upon this issue and instead gave vague and
self-proclaimed assumption, denying all allegations, giving clean chit to KR and the
Xerxese Morrenio. While clean chit was given by the B.C.CGo, IFC restricted MK to
take part in any world event, which was challenged in ACUT8 which clubbed both
causes of the suspended players and restrictions imposed on MK together.

8 Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC.

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

14. B.C.CGo also held a press release and made a declaration to appoint a commission in
association with IFC to investigate the scams that were going around. Xerxese was
suspended by B.C.CGo and not only this a complaint was filed in the Enforcement
Directorate (ED) by it under section 4 of PMLA in relation to a multi-million deal
between Meghe sports and FSL regarding T.V. rights on GPL worth Rs 600 crore in
2010. Subsequently, ED in the year 2012 filed the case in the Court of Session against
Xerxese Morrenio.
15. A PIL was filled by Altaf Aslam in the Honble Supreme Court of Godam (hereinafter
referred as S.C), upon which an order was passed directing B.C.CGo to look into the
matter. IFC also made a declaration by an ordinance rendering the authority of
B.C.CGo under question, taking all the proceeding related to cricket in the country
under their hand.
16. B.C.CGo made an 11 member committee incliding the Board of Directors (BOD) and
empires, to inquire upon the matter and prepared a detailed report Committee 1. The
inquiry was done in camera. The report was tabled before S.C and IFC. S.C rightly
rejected it as there were reported instances of misendeavour in it. S.C also criticized
IFC action to accept the report without any reservation to raise question. Keeping
BOD in the committee was explained as these officials had the occupancy of some
important documents, so keeping them would lead to inconvenience and delay, so the
case needs to be expeditiously inquired.
17. Another PIL was filed by Czar Leh, an empire working for IFC but a resident of
Godam challenging the findings of Committee 1. Before filing this PIL, IFC also
faced elections and Niladris became the Chairman of IFC who was once dethroned.
SC was convinced that Committee1 was influenced thus directed B.C.CGo to conduct
a fresh enquiry and no BOD member shall be a part of the committee. B.C.CGo did
the same and formed Committee 2 Report. B.C.CGos incompetency to file a
consolidated report was criticised.
18. S.C passed an order directing the Central Agency Investigation (CAI) to investigate
the matter and file the charge sheet within one month. CAI filed the same in the
special court. Accusations were imposed on Xerxese, B.C.CGo and the three sweat
equity owners of MK. The charges were framed related to corruption , murder, match
fixing, spot fixing and other offence in other appropriate laws that deemed fit.

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

19. However similar to Committee 2 report CAI made inferences that certain important
documents were missing and it was nobodys fault but B.C.CGo. It is to be noted that
B.C.CGo was booked for the first time as a party with reasons stated that B.C.CGo
was responsible for all the incompetent reports and that B.C.CGo was the facilitator
and was trying to cover up the garbage with mud and putting up a flag of green
revolution.
20. CAI court there was another case pending where B.C.CGo and Xerxese were charged
with corruption over which hearing on sentence was pending. The CAI court stated
that no hearing can be done as the fact of case depends on the judgement of Honble
High Court of Godam, hereinafter referred to as H.C. The case is pending in appeal in
the H.C of Godam where in addition to the matter in appeal the matter referred by IFC
is also consolidated, therefore the points raised as above are to be considered with
respect to parties appearing referring to the procedures of High Court of Godam.

13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable?

ISSUE II:

Whether B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very
beginning?

ISSUE III:

Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of match-fixing and
spot-fixing?
Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were guilty of cheating?

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue I
Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable?
In the instant case, there is no violation of fundamental rights as none of the fundamental
rights of Altaf Aslam are violated and thus he not has a locus standi to move in the court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Godam.

Issue II
Whether B.C.CGo was covering up the pie by giving clean chit from the very
beginning?
B.C.CGo was not covering all the allegations put up on KR with sufficient explanations. This
submission is two-fold: (i) B.C.CGo was performing its public duty, and (ii) B.C.CGo was
maintaining public confidentiality.

Issue III
Whether Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found guilty of match-fixing and spotfixing?
The Counsel brings to the notice of the Honble Court that the petitioner that is, Altaf Aslam
declared that the two players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson admitted that they were guilty
of match-fixing and spot-fixing but simultaneously made an accusation that they were the
vulnerable sentinels and innocent despite of being guilty.

15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE WRIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted before the Honble Court that present PIL is not maintainable against
B.C.CGo not being a state u/a 12 of the Constitution9.
The Counsel also brings to the notice of the Honble Court that B.C.CGo is not financially,
functionally or administratively dominated by government nor it is under control of
Government, therefore it is not a State and could also be seen in the case Zee Telefilms v
Union of India.10
The Civil suits could surely be filed and could be held maintainable if plaintiff was able to
make out a case that cause of action had arisen for filing a suit and if he was able to sustain
cause of action and he also was able to establish that he was proper party to suit.11
Further, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Khanna v.
NCERT,12 it was held that the B.C.CGo is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of Godam and the writs do not lie against the Board. In Shyamal Ghosh v.
Union of India and others13 the writ was filed against Board of Control for Cricket of
India (BCCI) and it was held that unless a body as deep pervasive control of Govt. and/or
unless Govt. functions under corporate fund of a body, such body cannot be said to be an
instrumental and State or other authority within ambit of Art.12 of Constitution. Further
BCCI was not state within meaning of Art.12 and hence petition not maintainable against
them. The private aided or non-aided educational institutions are neither State nor
authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as such writ seeking direction
upon such institutions in matter of admission to such school is not maintainable.14

9 Constitution of Godam, Pari Materia to Constitution of India hereinafter referred as Constitution

10 (2005) 4 SCC 649.
11 A . C . Muthiah vs . Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr . ( 28 . 04 . 2011 - SC ) JT2011(5)SC286,
2011(5)SCALE68, (2011)6SCC617.
12 (1991) 4 SCC 578 = AIR 1992 SC 76.
13 AIR 1998 Cal. 199, 1997 Indlaw Cal. 216.
14 Ms Dona Dhand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1991 Raj. 84

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Later, where complicated question of facts is involved and the matter requires thorough probe
on facts and the question of title is disputed, it was held in Punia Biswal v. Divisional Forest
Officer15, that the High Court will not interfere and the writ petition is not maintainable.
Also in the case Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Delhi and District Cricket Association16, it
was held that Public authority for purposes of 2005 Act need not be a State as meant to be
u/a 12 or amenable to Art.226 of Constitution of Godam and it was context of transparency
and accountability, or accessibility of its working to public that controls interpretation of
expression public authority, not amenability to judicial review of its decisions.
Further in the case Organizer, Dehri C.D. and C.M. Union Limited, Rohtas v State of
Bihar and others17 it was held, phrase other authorities in Art. 12 of the Constitution was
markedly distinct from any authority as covered by Art. 226 of the Constitution Public
authority which had been appointed to govern a Co-operative Society, which otherwise did
not qualify to be a State and was for all purposes a private body and which neither was an
instrumentality or agency of the State nor did it carry out a public function, did not qualify
to be a State in terms of Art. 12 of the Constitution especially when, in his capacity as the
Administrator, and as public authority, was not identifiable with the organization as such
and both stand apart from each other - Further, a public authority appointed in terms of Ss.
41(1) to 41(5) of the Act, specially where the organization as such was a private body and
was not State, could not be declared to be a State in terms of Art. 12 of the Constitution
yet such authority would not be beyond the ambit of Art. 226 of the Constitution.
I.1 No Violation of Rights
In the present case, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action
taken by Board of Cricket Control of Godam (hereinafter referred to as B.C.CGo) was in
furtherance of the principle of social justice and thus cannot be termed as arbitrary or as one
which was without the application of the mind. They do not mean that a High Court can issue
writs for any purpose it pleases.18

15
16
17
18

AIR 1990 Ori. 219.

2015 Indlaw CIC 60.
2014 Indlaw PAT 65; AIR 2014 PAT 67; 2014 (4) CTC 481.
T.K.TOPE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1982 EDN.), 501.

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Also, on allegations of involvement of B.C.CGo in corruption is false and baseless. Further,
no proper data per se has been provided from the side of the petitioner to substantiate its
allegations.
In the instant case, there is no violation of fundamental rights as none of the fundamental
rights of Altaf Aslam are violated and thus he not has a locus standi to move in the court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Godam.
Also the counsel pleads that Public Interest Litigation during pendency of civil suit is not
maintainable seen in the case Santosh Sood v. Gajender Singh.19

II. WHETHER B.C.CGO WAS COVERING UP THE PIE BY GIVING CLEAN CHIT
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING?

The Counsel asserts that B.C.CGo is best authority and body, as empowered to take decision
in interest of cricket is definitely includes commercial interest of cricket also.
B.C.CGo, performing alleged public duties/functions, cannot be stated to be contrary to aims
and object of body or any law or public policy.20 They are under obligation to control to
promote, control and encourage such game for people at large and do necessary things to
avoid conflicts and complications. Also in the case Rahul Mehra and Anr v. Union of India
and Ors .21 ,it was held that BCCI which is the sole repository of cricket in India has attained
this giant stature through its organisation, skill, the craze for the game in India by the tacit
approval of the Government. Many of these are in the nature of public duties and functions.
B.C.CGo is a body which does not tolerate any kind of Anti-Corruption activities, the fact
sheet is very clear in saying that Takishi has given B.C.CGo sufficient explanation
regarding the allegation which have popped up based on which B.C.CGo has given then clean
chit.

19 AIR 2010 SC 593:2009 AIR SCW 7165: (2009) 7 SCC 314.

20 Cricket Association of Bihar and another v. BCCI and another, 2015 Indlaw SC 44; (2015) 3 SCC 251; AIR
2015 SC 3194; 2015 (1) CLT(SC) 111
21 2004 Indlaw DEL 813; 2005 (4) CompLJ 268; 2004 (114) DLT 323.

18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

In Article 8 which talks about public disclosure and confidentiality, and according to Article
8.1: IFC seems it necessary not to disclose any internal issues to the public for the purpose of
protecting the integrity of sport, in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which are
felt reasonable. This is done when the participant has wrongly alleged into any wrong
practice and there is any incorrect media speculations. Until the participant is alleged
pursuant under Article 4.6 the authorities are not entitled to publicly announce the name of
the participant, but can do so if the question of public confidence is put up. With reference to
this explanation, B.C.CGo has not publicized the name of the participants and has given clean
chit for the reason of protecting the integrity of the sport.
According to Article 8.2.2 of ICC Anti-Corruption Code
If the decision exonerates the Participant, then the decision may be publicly reported only
with the consent of the Participant. The IFC shall use reasonable efforts to obtain such
consent, and (if consent is obtained) shall publicly disclose the decision in its entirety or in
such redacted form as the Participant may approve. In the instant case if Takishi wouldnt
have given his consent on the basis of which the clean chit is given.
Further referring to the facts of the case, B.C.CGo made a declaration to appoint a
commission in association with IFC to investigate the scams that were going around. Xerxese
was suspended by B.C.CGo and not only this a complaint was filed in the Enforcement
Directorate (ED) by it under section 4 of PMLA in relation to a multi-million deal between
Meghe sports and FSL regarding T.V. rights on GPL worth Rs 600 crore in 2010.
Section 4 of PMLA - Punishment for money-laundering -Whoever commits the offence of
money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine
1[***]:Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to
any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this
section shall have effect as if for the words which may extend to seven years, the words
which may extend to ten years had been substituted.
There is no gainsaying that the GPL Operational Rules provide for what is described as
disciplinary and complaint procedure to be followed in regard to the complaints and/or
breaches of the regulations and/or charges of misconduct levelled against anyone connected
with the GPL. This procedure includes establishment of a Disciplinary Procedure
19
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Commission to hear and decide such matters. In the instant case, the B.C.CGo goes for the
establishment of such a committee and performs its public duty.
Hence, B.C.CGo was not covering up the pie by giving clean chit.

III. WHETHER HANK JEFFERSON AND LIAM JACKSON WERE FOUND

GUILTY OF MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT-FIXING?

Allegations of sporting frauds like match fixing and betting have for the past few years cast a
cloud over the working of the Board of Cricket Control of Godam (B.C.CGo) Cricket being
more than just a sport for millions in this part of the world, accusations of malpractices and
conflict of interests against those who not only hold positions of influence in the B.C.CGo
but also own franchises and teams competing in the Indian Premier League format have left
many a cricketing enthusiasts and followers of the game worried and deeply suspicious about
what goes on in the name of the game. There is no denying the fact that lowers the threshold
of tolerance for any wrong doing higher is the expectation of the people, from the system.
And cricket being not only a passion but a great unifying force in this country, a zero
tolerance approach towards any wrong doing alone can satisfy the cry for cleansing.
While inquiring into the matter in the case Cricket Association of Bihar and another v.
Board of Control for Cricket in India and another 22, CBI defined Match Fixing as:
(i) instances where an individual player or group of players received money
individually/collectively to underperform;
(ii) instances where a player placed bets in matches in which he played that would naturally
undermine his performance;
(iii) instances where players passed on information to a betting syndicate about team
composition, probable result, pitch condition, weather, etc.,
(iv) instances where grounds men were given money to prepare a pitch in a way which suited
the betting syndicate; and
(v) Instances of current and ex-players being used by bookies to gain access to Indian and
foreign players to influence their performance for a monetary consideration.
22 2015 Indlaw SC 44, (2015) 3 SCC 251, AIR 2015 SC 3194, 2015 (1) CLT(SC) 111, JT 2015 (1) SC 526,
2015 (1) MLJ 711, 2015(1) SCALE 608.

20
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

In the present case, the players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson, received large amount of
money for bowling no balls in a particular over of the match on the directions of the bookie
named as Abu Zawahar.
In the case Hiken Naresh Shah v Board of Control for Cricket in India23, where a first
class cricketer and also member of Indian Premier League team Rajasthan Royals, lodged
complaint against petitioner for indulging in corrupt practices of match fixing- Petitioner
received notice, under which petitioner was called upon to appear before Director of AntiCorruption Union(ACU) - Thereafter, petitioner received suspension order from President of
Respondent from participating in any kind of cricket matches held by or under aegis of BCCI.
Similarly in the instant case, B.C.CGo appreciated the act of MK expelling the scions of
corruption,that is Hank and Liam.
The Counsel also states that No man from the fear of consequence to himself has a right to
make himself a party to committing mischief on mankind.24
Therefore, Hank and Jackson were guilty of match fixing and spot fixing.

III.1. WHETHER HANK JEFFERSON AND LIAM JACKSON WERE GUILTY OF

CHEATING
A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of Sec. 415 of the GPC which
defines cheating. Cheating is that conduct which is not only against the spirit of the game,

but it is also against the central purpose of the game and undermines the entire institution of
sport.
Although it is difficult to state precisely what cheating means, it would suffice to state that
it is the normative judgment that a person has committed a morally wrongful act and it is this
understanding of such morally wrongful behaviour that shapes our moral lives as well as the
formulation of various criminal offences. Generally, it may be safe to state that cheating
occurs when one acts against specific rules rather than broad principles or policies as
someone who violates this principle might be said to be evil or wicked or immoral, but not a
cheat.

23 2015 Indlaw Mum 868.

24 Maganlal and Motilal, (1889) 14 Bom 115.

21
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest
offender is bound to protect.-Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby
to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating
relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
In Cricket Association of Bihar and another v. Board of Control for Cricket in India
and another25 i.e, Indian Premier League April 2013 case where Mr. S. Sreesanth, Mr. Ajit
Chandila and Mr. Ankit Chavan of the Rajasthan Royals alongwith 7 bookies detained for
allegations of spot-fixing. Hank and Liam confessed themselves and under section 418 and
section 120 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were guilty of cheating.
Therefore, Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were found to be guilty of cheating.

25 Supra note 19.

22
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition- 2016

PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on behalf of the
appellant humbly submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The instant Writ Petition is not maintainable;

2. B.C.CGo has performed this public duty properly.
3. Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson were guilty of match-fixing and spot-fixing.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience. For This
Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Counsel for the Respondent

23
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT