Response to allegations made against Ajay Jadeja in the CBI Report on match-fixing and related malpractices in cricket.

The report also claims that I said I called him because I was superstitious. This is a gross misinterpretation of what I said.

What I stated to the CBI was that occasionally Ramesh Gupta Alias Uttam Chand would leave sentimental messages of the following kind
a) why are you not accepting / are rejecting my calls
b) I only want to wish you sir
c) I am a fan, please talk to me.
And such other messages.

Ramesh Gupta alias Uttam Chand's statement to the CBI is therefore completely untrue.

I now come to the details mentioned in the relation to the large number of calls listed in the report on pages 19 and 120 as a "random sample of cell phone calls " and stated to be from Ramesh Gupta Alias Uttam Chand. This is apparently one of the main pillars of the case that the report seeks to build against me and thus the only "documentary evidence" offered in the report.

I categorically state that the manner in which this evidence has been presented is designed to deliberately mislead and the conclusions reached thereon are grossly incorrect and false.

I categorically deny having received the number of calls as mentioned in the report. The large number of calls listed in the report on the pages 119 and 120 from Ramesh Gupta alias Uttam Chand to myself has no relation to the number of times he has spoken to me.

This is because, as acknowledged by the CBI on page 118-119b " many of the calls made by Uttam Chand to Jadeja are of short duration and these are probably messages left in the voice-mail". It is clear that I could not have spoken with Ramesh Gupta on occasions when he left the messages in my voice-mail.

Further it he called and did not leave a specific message on my voice-mail, there is no way I could tell whether or not he had tried to call me. The completed conversation between Ramesh Gupta alias Uttam Chand and myself should appear I my phone bills, however they are at no point mentioned or used as evidence to arrive at what appears to be a predetermined conclusion.

I have now come to a point which in my opinion clearly shows that the evidence of the CBI in relation to the supposed telephone calls between Ramesh Gupta alias Uttam Chand and myself is at best absurd alias Uttam Chand and at worst callous and the most telling example of the manner in which the supposed "facts" in the report have been proved against me.

Certain calls mentioned at page 120 are supposed to have been made to me at Guwahati and Jamshedpur, on match days. Neither of these two cities has Airtel facilities to date. This clearly establishes that my mobile phone could not under any circumstances have worked in these cities on the dates mentioned in the report and therefore there could be no question of nay speaking to Ramesh Gupta alias Uttam Chand, no matter how many times he tried to call me.

Knowing that this was the case, the CBI nonetheless has chosen to use this non-existent evidence as one of the main pillars of their case against me. The evidence of other phone calls cited by the CBI against me is equally dubious.

Further, consider random sample 14 on page 120, where it says that Ramesh Gupta called me 55 times and I called him once prior to the 5th ODI between India and New Zealand at Delhi. The reality is that I was injured and did not play in the match at all. Again, the CBI has used the facts to its convenience.

There is another example of this attitude of the CBI on page 118 of the report. Here, they conclude that "the connection between Uttam Chand and Ajay Jadeja is therefore not innocent." On the basis that" there have been no calls between then during a gap between two series or even during a gap in matches during particular series.

This statement is blatantly false. An analysis of my phone bills will show that there have indeed been random calls in between matches, tours and series and including when I was not playing.

This is the kind of evidence which is supposed to "clearly establish that he (Jadeja) has been close to a number of bookies/punters and has provided them "information" about cricket matches on payment of money.

Further the CBI states:

However it has to be surmised that no bookie/ punter will pay money for "information" which is easily available on television and the word is used as a subfertuge for underperforming and match-fixing."

The concoction of a large number of supposed phone calls from Ramesh Gupta alias Uttam Chand to me has been projected to appear as if I have nothing better to do than to constantly be on the phone to this person.

The report then goes onto construe that I gave `information' during these non-existent conversations and further attempts to damn me by saying information actually means match-fixing. Such far fetched and untenable conclusions based on false ** of phone calls should be rejected by anyone with basic common sense.

How all this put together can be construed as "evidence" that not only was I close to these people but must have been paid money for giving "information" seems an attempt to twist the "evidence" to arrive at predetermined conclusions against me.

Back      More

The complete coverage

Mail Cricket Editor