before the honourable high court of godam€¦ · · 2016-11-11before the honourable high court...

4th

AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

In the matter of,

Sections 107, 120A, 204, 302, 415 of the Godam Penal Code, 1860

Sections 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Sections 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM

WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014

Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. International Federation of Cricket & Others

ALONG WITH

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM

WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014

Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket & Others

ALONG WITH

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF GODAM, 1973

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________/ 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

Xerxese, B.C.CGo & Others v. Central Authority of Investigation

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS

AIM 036

4TH

AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... VII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................. VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................... IX

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 1

I.WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF

MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING ............................................................................................... 1

A. The principle of fair hearing was not followed before suspending the Applicants ................... 1

B. The Applicants are not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing ................................................... 2

B.1 Entrapment by the news channel ............................................................................................ 2

B.2 Newspaper Article by Altaf Aslam is an inadmissible evidence ............................................ 3

II.WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD ................ 4

A. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder .................................................. 4

B. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are not liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution Theory .. 5

C. There is no common intention between the parties ................................................................... 5

D. There are no merits to the conviction ........................................................................................ 6

D.1 There is no proven motive ...................................................................................................... 6

D.2 There is no Circumstantial Evidence ...................................................................................... 6

D.3 Reports suggested that it could not be murder ....................................................................... 6

III.WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,

MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING ............................................................................................... 7

A. Appellants are not liable for action under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ....................... 7

B. Appellants are not liable under the Penal Code of Godam, 1860 ............................................. 8

B.1 Cheating u/s 415 ..................................................................................................................... 8

B.2 Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120A ............................................................................................... 9

B.3 Abetment u/s 107 .................................................................................................................... 9

C. B.C.CGo is not liable for money laundering ........................................................................... 10

D. Xerexese Morrenio cannot be held liable under the cricket regulations................................. 10

IV.WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET .......................................................................... 11

A. The Principles of Natural Justice was not followed by IFC .................................................... 12

B. Applicant falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go and not IFC ............................. 13

C. Applicant took action against the corrupt players .................................................................. 14

D. Restriction amounts to restrain of trade to the rest of the team .............................................. 15

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................... XI

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

GPL Godam Premier League

IFC International Federation of Cricket

B.C.CGo Board of cricket control of Godam

AIR All Indian Reporter

CAS Court of Arbitration of Sports

KER Kerala

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SC Supreme Court

EWHC England & Wales High Court

ILR Indian Law Reporter

SLT Scots Law Times

KAR Karnataka

CompCas Company Cases

ER English Reporter

KB King’s Bench

ICR Industrial Cases Reporter

N.Y.S New York State

N.W North Western

N.C North Carolina

ICC International Cricket Council

B.C.C.I Board of Cricket Council of India

IPL Indian Premier League

MAD Madras

Cal.Rptr California Reporter

QB Queens bench

U.S.L.W United States Law Week

S.W South Western Reporter

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

International Cases

Australian Securities Commission v. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Tasmania (1993) 10 ACSR 489

............................................................................................................................................... 1

Baird v. Wells [1890] 44 Ch. D. 661 ......................................................................................... 2

Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and others [1971] 1 All E. R. 1148 (C.A.) .......... 1

Ceylon University v. Fernando (1960) 1 WLR 223 .................................................................. 1

El-Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings Plc.; [1994] 2 All E.R .......................................................... 5

Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) ..................................................... 13

Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205 ......................................................................... 13

Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540 (1992) ................................................................ 3

Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540(1992) ................................................................. 2

Lee v. Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 All E.R. 1175 (C.A.) ................................ 2

Mrs. Razia Satter v. Mr. Azizul Huq and others 2006 26 BLD 515 ....................................... 13

Mulcahy v. Reg (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306 .................................................................................... 9

N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 494 (1909) .......................... 5

Navarro v. Spanish-Australian Club of Canberra ACT Inc (1987) 87 FLR 390 ...................... 1

Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA CAS 2010/A/2172 ........................................................................... 14

PC Local Govt. Board v. Arlidge (1915) AC 120 ..................................................................... 1

Queen Empress v. Hoshhak, 1941 All ALJR 416 ..................................................................... 9

Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092 ................... 13

Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40 .............................................................................................. 12

Sherman v. United States 356 US 359 (1958)........................................................................... 3

Sorrell v. United States 287 US 435 (1932) .............................................................................. 3

St Johnston Football Club Ltd. v. Scottish Football Association Ltd 1965 SLT 171 ............... 1

State Of Haryana And Others vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Another, AIR 1993 SC 1348 ............... 3

State v. Hutter, 18 N.W.2d 203 ................................................................................................. 4

Sunil Ramdas Kotkar And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2005 (4) BomCR 117 ..... 3

Indian Cases

Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (61) DRJ 639 ....................................................... 1

Court on its own motion v. State 2008 (100) DRJ 144 ............................................................. 2

Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316 ....................................................................... 5

Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors v. State Of Kerala, 2001) 7 SCC 596 ................................... 9

G.V. Raovs L.H. v. Prasad &Ors, (2000) 3 SCC 693 ............................................................... 8

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308

............................................................................................................................................. 12

Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99 ............................................................... 5

Lallan Rai and Others v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 ..................................................... 5

Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. (1997) 8 SCC 158 ........................................................................ 3

Priya Bal Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh AIR 1971 SC 1153 .............................................. 3

Punjab SEB v. Ashwini Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 120 ................................................................... 1

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS v

Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 787 .......................................... 6

Sri Umesh Kumar Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2012(4)ALT437 ............................... 8

Standard Charted Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 50................................ 5

Thaman Kumar v. State of UT Chandigarh AIR 2003 SC 3975 .............................................. 6

Yunis v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539 ............................................................... 6

Regulations

BCCI Code of Conduct for Participants ................................................................................................. 12

ICC Anti-Corruption Code ....................................................................................................................... 2

ICC Anti-Corruption Code For Participants .......................................................................................... 15

Operational Rules for the 2013 Indian Premier League ..................................................................... 2, 15

Articles

Hilary A. Findlay, “Rules of a Sport-Specific Arbitration Process as an Instrument of Policy Making”

(2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Books

Adam Lewis and Jonathan Taylor, SPORT: LAW AND PRACTICE, (Butterworth LexisNexis

Publication, 2003) .......................................................................................................... 12, 15

CK Thakker, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, Eastern Book Co, 1992 ........................................ 12

DeSmith, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, 1980 ........................... 12

Len Sealy & Sarah Worthington, CASES AND MATERIALS IN COMPANY LAW, 8th

ed., Oxford

University Press, 2007 ........................................................................................................... 5

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 71 (31st ed. 2006) ................................ 4

Wade, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (8th

edn, 2000, Oxford) at page 278-285 ......................... 12

Statutory Legislations

Evidence Act, 1872 ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Godam Penal Code, 1860 ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ........................................................................................................................ 7

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ............................................................................................... 7, 10, 11

Lexicons

Blacks' Law Dictionary (9th Edition)……………………………………………….…………………..7

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Applicants Hank Jefferson, Liam Jackson and Mandeva Kites have approached the Hon’ble High

Court of Godam under Article 226 of the Constitution of Godam.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs and appeal provisions under CRPC

(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

(2)…

(3)…

(4)…

The Appellants Xerxese, B.C.CGo, Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morrenio have approached the

Hon’ble High Court of Godam under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Godam, 1973.

374. Appeals from convictions:

(1)…

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a

trial held any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment more than seven years has been against

him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court.

(3)…

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. BACKGROUND: GODAM PREMIER LEAGUE

Godam Premier League (GPL) is a form of cricket tournament launched in 2009 by Board of Cricket

Control of Godam (B.C.C.Go). In its 5th

edition, one team Kondra Ranges (KR) was found guilty of

match-fixing.

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNED PARTIES

B.C.C.Go: B.C.C.Go is the body responsible for all the activities related to cricket in Godam.

Xerxese: Xerxese was the commissioner of GPL and the business development manager of B.C.CGo.

Mandeva Kites: MK had entered GPL in its 6th

edition. The major shareholders of KR were the sweat

equity shareholders of the new ‘ Mandeva Kites’ i.e Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morennio. Two

of its players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson, were found guilty of match fixing and spot fixing in

the 6th

edition of GPL.

II. PETER WOODFORD FOUND DEAD

When KR was dissolved after the 5th

edition, its coach Peter Woodford was found dead in his hotel

room with his belongings. He had made several calls before his death, including those to Zia Kuriet

and Xerxese.

III. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN 6TH

EDITION OF GPL

MK lost in the semi-finals in the 6th

edition of GPL. There were allegations of match fixing and spot

fixing made on MK and its two players, Liam Jackson and Hank Jefferson. Subsequently, players were

suspended by MK. Also MK was restricted by IFC to take part in any world event. These orders were

confirmed by the Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of International Federation of Cricket (IFC).

IV. EPILOUGE

Altaf Aslam filed a PIL in Supreme Court, which ordered B.C.CGo to look into the matter and to

submit detailed reports. Committee Reports were rejected by the Supreme Court and an order was

passed directing CIA Special court to look into the matter. CIA Court found Xerxese, B.C.C.Go and

three sweat equity owners as guilty of corruption, match fixing, spot fixing murder and other offences.

The parties went in appeal to the High Court of Godam.

The two suspended players and Mandeva Kites have also approached the High Court challenging the

orders imposed on them. The matters have been consolidated by the High Court of Godam.

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS viii

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.CGo & Others

WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF

MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.

ISSUE II:

Xerxese, B.C.CGo and Others v. Central Agency of Investigation

WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.

ISSUE III:

Xerxese & B.C.CGo v. Central Authority of Investigation

WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,

MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.

ISSUE IV

Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket

WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET.

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I:




It is humbly contended that the players were not rightly suspended as there was violation of the

principle of fair hearing. Also, the players were also not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing as they

were entrapped by a news agency by its fabricated sting operation. Additionally, the confession of an

offence, given to Altaf Aslam, is considered as an extrajudicial in nature and thus, inadmissible.

ISSUE II:


WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.

It is humbly contended that the three sweat equity owners, Xerxese and B.C.CGo cannot be held

liable for the offence of murder of Peter Woodford on the grounds that B.C.C.Go, as a legal

entity, cannot be held liable for murder, Xerxese and sweat equity owners are not liable under the

alter ego & attribution theory, there was no common intention between the parties and that there

were no merits to the conviction, it is humbly submitted that the conviction order be set aside by

the Hon’ble High Court.

ISSUE III:



MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.

It is humbly contended that the applicants are not liable under Section 13(d)/13(2) and Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as B.C.CGo and Xerxese as there exists no unerring circumstance

to prove that they have abused their position to show favour towards anyone. Applicants are also not

liable u/s 415, 107 and 120A of Godam Penal Code, 1860 as they did not at any circumstance deceive

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS x

the franchises or other stakeholders of GPL. The applicants have not disguised or gained any pecuniary

benefit and therefore can’t be held liable u/s 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. There

was also no agreement to commit a crime nor was there any circumstances to establish a common

intention u/s 120A, therefore, since the applicants are not liable under any of the above provisions, the

offence of abetment cannot be upheld.

ISSUE IV




It is humbly contended that that the restriction imposed on Mandeva Kites by the International

Federation of Cricket was erroneous, because IFC violated the principles of Natural Justice. IFC does

not have jurisdiction over MK. Action was already taken by MK against the players who were found

guilty of match-fixing and spot fixing and that the restriction of the team amounts to restraint of trade.

4TH

AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36

MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 1

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I




1. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Godam that the applicants were wrongly

suspended from the Godam Premier League (herein after referred to as ‘GPL). The applicants were

expelled by the management of their team on the charges of match fixing and spot fixing and the

expulsion order was approved by B.C.CGo and IFC. The contention of wrongful suspension is two-

fold: firstly, the principle of fair hearing was not followed before suspending the Applicants [A]

and secondly, the Applicants were not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing [B].

A. The principle of fair hearing was not followed before suspending the Applicants

2. The principle of fair hearing (audi alteram partem) is a central principle of natural justice, which

requires that no person is condemned unheard.1 A person to be affected by an order has a right to be

heard in his own defence2 and to correct or contradict any relevant statement to his prejudice.

3 The

authorities after hearing the parties and considering their objections should pass a reasoned order.4

3. It is judicially recognized that courts can interfere with a sport organisation’s decision when the

principles of natural justice are not followed.5 Even though sports federations derive their powers from

the Code which regulates the relationship between the players and the federation, yet they are subjected

to control by courts.6 The tribunals within these federations are imposed with limitations of public

1 Grayson, 2000; Parpworth, 1996; Boyes 2000

2 Navarro v. Spanish-Australian Club of Canberra ACT Inc (1987) 87 FLR 390; Australian Securities Commission v.

Multiple Sclerosis Society of Tasmania (1993) 10 ACSR 489 at 515. 3 Ceylon University v. Fernando (1960) 1 WLR 223, 232; PC Local Govt. Board v. Arlidge (1915) AC 120

4 Punjab SEB v. Ashwini Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 120

5 Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (61) DRJ 639; St Johnston Football Club Ltd. v. Scottish Football Association

Ltd 1965 SLT 171; Navarro v. Spanish-Australian Club of Canberra ACT Inc (1987) 87 FLR 390; Ambalal Sarabhai v.

Phiroz H. Antia AIR 1939 Bom 35 6Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and others [1971] 1 All E. R. 1148 (C.A.)

4TH



policy, for instance, observance of the principles of natural justice.7 This is applicable even though

sports organizations are autonomous and have the authority to govern themselves and their members.8

4. It is mandatory for the suspending authority, whether it is B.C.CGo or IFC, to necessarily provide the

accused player with a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the charges imposed on him, show cause

and accordingly produce evidence during the course of enquiry.9 Thus, a player can only be suspended

after a fair hearing has been provided to him.10

5. In the present case, when the charges of match fixing and spot fixing arose against the Applicants, IFC

directed B.C.CGo to conduct preliminary enquiries and make appropriate enquiries, for which

B.C.CGo asked Mandeva Kites to show cause, but instead Mandeva Kites suspended the players.11

B.C.CGo did not follow the applicable procedures and accepted the order of suspension of Appellants

by MK, and IFC confirmed the suspension orders without conducting any inquiries or hearing the

accused.

6. The order of suspension by MK which was approved by B.C.C.Go and confirmed by IFC is therefore

in clear violation to the element of fair hearing under the principle of natural justice. On the basis of

this, it is contended that the order of suspension is subject to judicial review and should be set aside by

the Hon’ble Court.

B. The Applicants are not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing

7. It is contended that the Applicants are not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing as shown by news

agencies because, firstly, they were entrapped by the news channel [A.1]; secondly, the newspaper

article by Altaf Aslam is inadmissible evidence [A.2].

B.1 Entrapment by the news channel

8. It is a well-accepted principle that the media is not permitted to entice and try to actively induce an

individual into committing an offence which otherwise he is not likely to commit.12

The Courts

discourage such acts that implant in an innocent person's mind a disposition to commit a criminal act.13

7 Denning L.J. in Lee v. Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 All E.R. 1175 (C.A.); Baird v. Wells [1890] 44 Ch. D.

661, p. 670. 8Hilary A. Findlay, “Rules of a Sport-Specific Arbitration Process as an Instrument of Policy Making” (2005)

Marquette Sports Law Review [Fall 2005], at 6 9 Articles 4.5 and 4.6, BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants; Rule 2.2.3 and 6.3.8, Operational Rules for the 2013

Indian Premier League 10

Article 4.6.3, ICC Anti-Corruption Code 11

Refer to Para 12, page 6, Moot proposition. 12

Court on its own motion v. State 2008 (100) DRJ 144 (Delhi School teacher case) 13

Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540(1992)

4TH



9. The criminal jurisprudence differentiates between ‘the trap for the unwary innocent’ and ‘the trap for

the unwary criminal’14

and the operations concerning the former, where the crime is the ‘product of the

creative activity’ should be censored.15

While artifice is employed to catch those who are engaged in

criminal enterprises, it has to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the person had a

predisposition to commit the said criminal act prior to being approached by the enforcement agencies.16

10. In the present case, a news agency conducted a sting operation on the Applicants using a bookmaker,

named as Abu Zawahar, wherein they recorded their conversations, on the basis of which players were

held guilty by the news channel.17

11. It is contended that the news agency entrapped the Applicants by its fabricated sting operation, which

induced them into committing an act which they otherwise would not have attempted. The operation

implanted in the mind of innocent persons a disposition to commit an offence.

12. To hold the Applicants liable under the charges of match-fixing and spot-fixing, there is thus a need to

establish beyond reasonable doubt that they were going to commit the offence without being

approached by the news agency. As no such proof has been made, it is submitted that the Applicants

were entrapped by the news agency and therefore, cannot be held guilty on the alleged charges.

B.2 Newspaper Article by Altaf Aslam is an inadmissible evidence

13. Newspaper is not a document by which an allegation of fact can be proved.

18 The presumption of

genuineness attached to a newspaper

report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.

19

A statement of fact contained in a newspaper

is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible

in evidence

in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have

perceived the fact reported.20

14. A confessional statement cannot be acted upon when it is not put by accused in his examination-in-

chief.21

Moreover, where there is any extrajudicial confession, it must be corroborated with

circumstantial evidence.22

14

Chief Justice Warren in Sherman v. United States 356 US 359 (1958) 15

Sorrell v. United States 287 US 435 (1932) 16

Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540 (1992) 17

Refer to Paragraph 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition

18 Sunil Ramdas Kotkar And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2005 (4) BomCR 117

19 State Of Haryana And Others vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Another, AIR 1993 SC 1348

20 Sunil Ramdas Kotkar And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2005 (4) BomCR 117 21

Priya Bal Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh AIR 1971 SC 1153 22

Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. (1997) 8 SCC 158; Podyami Sukada v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) AIR

2010 SC 2977

4TH



15. In the present case, Altaf Aslam wrote a newspaper article stating the Applicants confessed to him

towards admitting the offence of match fixing and spot fixing and further extending the liability to

other cricket officials and the B.C.CGo.

16. It is contended that any confession of an offence, such as the one to the Altaf Aslam, is considered as

an extrajudicial confession. The Applicants cannot be convicted on the basis of such a confession,

unless such a confession is also made during the examination-in-chief or there is corroborative

circumstantial evidence to prove the same.

17. It is humbly submitted that the suspension order of the Applicants should be quashed as they were not

given a fair hearing by B.C.CGo and IFC, and evidence procured through entrapment and extrajudicial

statements are not admissible as evidence against the Applicants for the offences of match fixing and

spot fixing.

ISSUE II


WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.

18. In the instant matter, the Central Authority of Investigation (CIA) Court convicted Xerxese, B.C.C.Go

and three sweat equity owners for the offence of murder of the Peter Woordford. The prima facie

evidence presented before the criminal court is insufficient and inconclusive evidence to show that the

Appellants can be made even accused for the aforementioned offence; and the appeal has been filed for

the setting aside the conviction order. The arguments of the Appellants are as follows:

A. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder

B. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are not liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution Theory

C. There is no common intention between the parties

D. There are no merits to the case

A. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder

19. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either

express or implied.23

There are some crimes, which in their nature cannot be committed by

corporations, such as murder, rape etc.,24

i.e. those punishable with mandatory imprisonment,25

unless

the charge is against a specific person within the entity.26

23

Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, 1891; State v. Hutter, 18 N.W.2d 203, 206 24

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 71 (31st ed. 2006)

4TH



20. In the present case, B.C.CGo was charged with murder and was convicted for the same by the CAI.27

It

is contended that since the offence of murder was not against a particular person within the association,

the charge is not valid and hence the conviction is not proper.

B. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are not liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution

Theory

21. The principles of attribution are generally invoked to ascertain the identity of individuals within a

company whose mental element will be attributed to that of the company for the purpose of foisting

criminal liability.28

The natural person or persons who had management and control in relation to the

act or omission in point could be regarded as its directing mind and will for that purpose.29

22. In the present case, Xerxese and three sweat equity owners were considered alter ego of GPL and KR

respectively. Assuming but not admitting that the murder accusations arose due to the corruption

charges on KR, it is contended that there was incorrect application of alter ego and attribution theory as

firstly, B.C.C.Go and not Xerxese were under direct control for the acts of GPL and secondly, KR’s

owner was Takishi and not the sweat equity owners of MK.

C. There is no common intention between the parties

23. The sharing of the common intention and not the individual acts of the persons constitute the crime.30

While determining the common intention, the incriminating facts should establish beyond reasonable

doubt the incompatibility with the innocence of the accused and incapability of explanation or any

other reasonable hypothesis.31

24. In the present case, B.C.C.Go is the governing body of cricket in Godam,32

where Xerxese was the

business developer manager.33

Xerxese appointed the deceased as the coach of KR to give a world

class exposure to the GPL team.34

Xerxese believed that GPL was fortunate to have Peter Woodford as

25

Standard Charted Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 50 26

N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 494 (1909) 27

Refer to Para 28, Page 10, Moot Proposition

28 Len Sealy & Sarah Worthington, Cases and materials in Company Law, 8th

ed., Oxford University Press, 2007 page 152 29

El-Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings Plc.; [1994] 2 All E.R 30

Lallan Rai and Others v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 31

Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v.

State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of

Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 32

Refer to Paragraph 2, Page 2, Moot Proposition 33


Refer to Paragraph 11, Page 4, Moot Proposition

4TH



the coach of a team in GPL.35

There is nothing that shows the common intention of the accused parties

to murder the deceased with such certainty to their guilt.

D. There are no merits to the conviction

25. It is contended that the present conviction is erroneous as it had been done without having any merits.

This is contended on the basis of three grounds:

D.1 There is no proven motive

26. Mens rea is one of basic requirements which leads to determine homicidal character of offence under

Section 302 GPC.36

In the present case, it is given that in a talk show, the deceased did not comment on

any question which projected his difference towards the organising committee of GPL.37

It is

contended that such incidents does not prove any motive to murder the victim.

D.2 There is no Circumstantial Evidence

27. In cases where motive is absent, the role of the accused in committing the offence should be fully

established and ocular motive should be clear and convincing.38

The chain of circumstantial evidence

should be clearly established to such an extent that an irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the

accused can be safely drawn.39

In the present case, the deceased had made phone calls to several people

on the day of his death including the Appellants.40

However, this is not a trustworthy evidence to

establish a chain of circumstances that could link the Appellants with the murder.

D.3 Reports suggested that it could not be murder

28. In a case concerning another cricket coach, Bob Woolmer, who died in a manner very similar to the

present case, the ICC had confirmed that he had died of natural causes and that his death was not

related to various on-going speculations such as murder, suicide or corruption.41

29. In the present case, the autopsy report states that the deceased could not have died due to strangulation

as his hiod bone was intact.42

After a detailed report, death by natural causes was the only plausible

conclusion.43

35


Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 787; State of Orissa v. Wateka Mani 2009 (2) OLR 403 37


Yunis v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539; Thaman Kumar v. State of UT Chandigarh AIR 2003 SC 3975 39

Section 8 Evidence Act, 1872; Bhag Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (18) CriCC 598; Gulab Chand v. State Of Madhya

Pradesh 1995 (3) SCR 27; Abdul Ghani v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 264 40


http://jis.gov.jm/statement-from-icc-cwc-wi-2007-inc-following-announcement-that-bob-woolmer-died-of-natural-causes/ 42

Refer to Para 11, Page 5, Moot Proposition.

4TH



30. On the basis of the above contentions that B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder,

Xerxese and sweat equity owners are not liable under the alter ego & attribution theory, there was no

common intention between the parties and that there were no merits to the conviction, it is humbly

submitted that the conviction order be set aside by the Hon’ble High Court.

ISSUE III



MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT-FIXING.

31. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that Xerxese and B.C.CGo have been wrongly

convicted by the Central Authority of Investigation (hereafter referred to as CAI). The contention put

forth is three fold: firstly, Appellants are not liable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein

after referred to as POCA) [A]; secondly, Appellants are not liable under the Godam Penal Code, 1860

[B] and thirdly, the offence of laundering money against Appellants is false in nature under Prevention

of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as PMLA) [C] and fourthly, Xerxese cannot be

held liable under the cricket regulations [D].

A. Appellants are not liable for action under POCA, 1988

32. Corruption is defined as a fraudulent and vicious intention to evade the prohibitions of law; it is the

illegal act of the public servant who abuses his position to procure benefit for himself.44

33. Under Section 7 of POCA, 1988 if a public servant accepts gratification for himself as a motive or

reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act by showing favour or disfavour to any person, he can

be held liable for illegal gratification.

34. Under Section 13(d) of POCA, 1988 where there is no unerring certainty in the circumstantial evidence

that would lead to the belief that the accused acted with the dishonest intention, corrupt motive or

abused their position, they cannot be held guilty.

B.C.C.Go

35. B.C.C.Go is the parent body of cricket in Godam and accordingly, was responsible for all the operation

of GPL.45

When the speculations of corruptions arose, Appellant appointed two committees in

association with IFC to inquire and prepare detailed reports on the matter.46

43

Refer to Para 14, Page 7, Moot Proposition and Refer to Para 22, Page 9, Moot Proposition. 44

Black Law’s Dictionary, 9th

edition.

4TH



36. It is contended that B.C.C.Go did not commit criminal misconduct as there is no proper evidence that

indicates that B.C.C.Go gained by the corrupt activities that the two players of MK were involved in.

Moreover, B.C.C.Go upheld fairness and hindering force against corruption as this can be seen in many

instances where it appointed committees in association with IFC to investigate into the corruption

scams.

Xerxese

37. Xerxese Morrenio was the commissioner of GPL47

and the business development manager of

B.C.C.Go.48

In order to offer world-class exposure to the competition, he used to recruit top

professionals such as coaches, physios and technical staff.49

38. It is contended that Xerxese did not commit illegal gratification as there is no evidence that shows that

he favoured or disfavoured any person as he recruited professionals who were good at skills and not

because of any reward. There was only a complaint of malpractice recorded against him50

but the

charges were not confirmed. 51

39. Thus, there is nothing that would lead to the proof beyond reasonable doubt that Xerxese and B.C.C.Go

acted with corrupt motive and hence, they cannot be held guilty for corruption under POCA, 1988 and

hence, they should be acquitted of it.

B. Appellants are not liable under the Penal Code of Godam

40. It is contended that Appellants are not liable for offences under Godam Penal Code, namely cheating u/s

415 [B.1]; abetment u/s 107 [B.2] and criminal conspiracy u/s 120A [B.3].

B.1 Cheating u/s 415

41. The offence of cheating u/s 415 of the Penal Code criminalizes the act of intentionally inducing a person

to do or omit to do anything, which he otherwise would not do and this act causes or is likely to cause

damage or harm to that person’s body, mind, reputation or property. The common condition of cheating

is, deception, which should be fraudulent52

and intentional.53

45


Refer to Para 21, page 8 and para 23, page 9, Moot Proposition 47

Refer to para 5, page 2, Moot proposition. 48



Refer to para l8, page 8, Moot proposition. 51

Refer to para, page 8, Moot proposition. 52

G.V. Raovs L.H. v. Prasad &Ors, (2000) 3 SCC 693 53

Sri Umesh Kumar Ips v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2012(4)ALT437,

4TH



42. B.C.C.Go is committed to take every such step in its power to prevent any act which undermines the

integrity of sports.54

In respect of this, it has curbed all acts of corruption as and when possible. On the

other hand, Xerxese was the commissioner of GPL, a potent business entity who motivated many

business federations to invest into the game of cricket.55

He gave it world-class exposure.56

43. For the offence of cheating to be established there needs to be an element of deception, but in the

current case, there is no evidence to prove that B.C.C.Go or Xerxese have induced anyone to do or omit

to do anything, that is likely to cause damage or harm to any person. Appellant has not deceived the

franchise owners, players or the public. Instead they have upheld the spirit of the game in all instances.

Thus, it is contended that the Appellants are not guilty of cheating u/s 415 of the Penal Code.

B.2 Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120A

44. Criminal conspiracy is the act of doing an unlawful act by unlawful means.57

Section 120A of Penal

Code says that when two or more person agree to do or cause to do an illegal act, they shall be liable for

criminal conspiracy in the eyes of law. Agreement to commit an illegal act is the quintessence of

conspiracy. 58

45. Even though, the evidence of such agreement need not be proved, however under Section 10 of the

Evidence Act, 1872, the circumstantial evidence for the same should have a reasonable ground to prove

that a common intention existed between all the conspirators. Such evidence should fully establish the

hypothesis of guilt. 59

46. In the present case, the act of organizing the cricket matches was the only duty that was done by

Appellants.60

This act of Appellants does not satisfy the essential conditions laid down under Section

120A of IPC as there was no illegal act performed by it, and also, there is no sufficient circumstantial

evidence to convict Appellants with conspiracy.

B.3 Abetment u/s 107

47. Section 107 of IPC lays down the offence of abetment to mean that when a person engages with one or

more than one person in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes

place in these events shall be held liable under this section.

54

Article 1.1.5 BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants 55

Refer to Para 5, Page 2, Moot proposition. 56


Mulcahy v. Reg (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306 58

Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors v. State Of Kerala, 2001) 7 SCC 596 59

Queen Empress v. Hoshhak, 1941 All ALJR 416 60

Refer to Para 2, Page 2, Moot proposition.

4TH



48. In the present case, Appellants are not liable under Section 107 of IPC as it has already been established

that they weren’t involved in any of the alleged offences. 61

Therefore, Appellants are not liable for

under Section 107 of IPC.

C. B.C.CGo is not liable for money laundering

49. According to Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 says that whoever indulges directly or indirectly with the

proceeds of the crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or

claiming it, as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering.62

To prove the offence

of money laundering, it has to be established that the money involved was due to a criminal activity

relating to a schedule offence.63

50. In the present case, B.C.C.Go was the governing body for all cricket activities in Godam and GPL was

its brainchild.64

When asked to look into the anti-sport activities by IFC, B.C.C.Go asked MK to show

cause.65

It also appointed two Committees to look into all the corruption matters that were going

around.66

51. In 2010, even though a complaint was filed in Enforcement Directorate against Xerxese under PMLA

and several allegations of underworld money was made, yet there was no evidence for the same. He was

given a clean chit by B.C.C.Go after the players imposed liability on him.67

52. Thus it is contended that B.C.C.Go did everything it could to uphold the spirit of cricket in Godam and

that it was not related to any money laundering activity. The offences related to criminal conspiracy,

cheating and other penal provisions have already been disproved against the Appellants.68

Therefore,

there is no offence of PMLA is established in relation to the schedule offences and hence Appellant

cannot be held liable under the same.

53. In the light of the above contentions, it is humbly submitted that the Appellants were wrongly convicted

by CAI Court and hence they should be acquitted by the High Court of Godam.

D. Xerexese Morrenio cannot be held liable under the cricket regulations

54. It is contended that Xerxese Morrenio is not subjected to the cricket regulations which are Codes of

Conduct and Anti-Corruption Codes of IFC and B.C.C.Go on four grounds:

61

Under Issue III, B.1 and B.2 62

Section 3 of of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 63

Section 2(1) (y) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 64





Refer to Issue III B

4TH



a) Firstly, GPL, being a ‘domestic match’ of Godam, is under the exclusive jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go

and outside the scope of control by IFC and any of its regulations such as IFC Code of Conduct

and IFC Anti-Corruption Code, which is applicable only to international matches.

b) Secondly, IFC Codes can be exercised only on those player support personnel who represent their

national sports federation in international matches.69

But Xerxese was a selector for the franchises

of GPL,70

wherein none of the teams represented B.C.C.Go at international level, but only at

domestic level.

c) Thirdly, B.C.C.Go Codes, also, can be exercised only on those player support personnel who

represent a GPL team.71

However, in the present case, even though Xerxese made selections for

GPL teams,72

he never represented any one particular team.

d) Fourthly, to hold a person liable of offences such as corruption73

and misuse of inside

information,74

there should be manipulation of the outcome of a match and abuse of office

respectively. However, in the present case, there is no evidence of any abuse of office by Xerxese

or offence of Corruption, to either influence the results of matches or sharing sensitive

information.

55. Thus, it is contended that Xerxese Morrenio cannot be held liable for any offences under the cricket

governing regulations.

56. On the basis of the above contentions that Appellants are not liable under Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, Godam Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that Xerxese

cannot be held liable under the cricket regulations, it is humbly submitted that the conviction order be

set aside by this Hon’ble High Court.

ISSUE IV




57. It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the restriction imposed to participate in any

world event on Mandeva Kites (hereinafter referred to as MK) by International Federation of Cricket

(hereinafter referred to as IFC) was erroneous. The contentions raised in this regard are: firstly, the

69

Appendix 1 – Definition of ‘Player Support Personnel’ in ICC’s Code of Conduct. 70

Refer to Para 11, page 4, Moot Proposition. 71

Appendix 1 – Definition of ‘Player Support Personnel’ in BCCI Code of Conduct for Participants. 72

Refer to Para 11, Page 4, Moot Proposition. 73

Article 2.1 of BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants. 74

Article 2.3 of BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants.

4TH



principle of natural justice was not followed [A]secondly, Applicant falls under the exclusive

jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go and not IFC [B] thirdly, Applicant took action against the corrupt players

[C]and fourthly, Restriction amounts to restrain of trade to the rest of the team [D].

A. The Principles of Natural Justice was not followed by IFC

58. In matters decided by the sport federation, an important aspect is that it a prosecutor as well as the

judge.75

Therefore, the application of principles of natural justice becomes very important, while

deciding on any such matters.76

It is a settled law that non-observance of the principles of natural

justice renders the order null and void.77

59. The Supreme Court in the Gullapali case held that the authority hearing the matter should decide the

same.78

While a decision-making body may delegate the task of hearing the evidence to another

authority, the hearing officer should submit a full and adequate report of the evidence to the deciding

body, on basis of which any order can be made. Any order passed otherwise would be invalid on the

ground that there has not been a fair hearing.79

A sport’s governing body cannot make a decision for

which there is no evidential basis and it must instruct itself properly as to its facts before reaching the

decision.80

These principles are applicable to any decision that affects property rights,81

which includes

taking away a person’s livelihood.82

60. Sport governing bodies are obliged to afford minimum standards of procedural protection to the

individual club or other constituent affected by their actions and to act fairly.83

It must afford the

player, club or another participant a fair opportunity to put his or her on its case.84

The player, club or

other participant must have an adequate opportunity to convey his or its case to the decision making

body.85

Within reason, the player, club or other participant should not be prevented from making points

which he, she or it believes to be pertinent to the issue.86

75

Adam Lewis and Jonathan Taylor, SPORT: LAW AND PRACTICE, (Butterworth LexisNexis Publication, 2003) 76

Ibid 77

Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40; Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 1 All ER 208; Mayes v

Mayes (1971) 2 All ER 401;General Medical Council v. Spackman (1943) 2 All ER 1279. Wade Administrative

Law,1988,pp 467,493,526; DeSmith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 1980 pp 240-47. CK Thakker,

Administrative Law, Eastern Book Co, 1992, pp216 78

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308 79

Jeffs v. New Zealand Diary Production & Marketing Board (1967) 1 AC 551 80

Wade Administrative Law (8th

edn, 2000, Oxford) at page 278-285; Wilander and Novacek v Tobin and Jude [1997] 2

Llyod’s Rep 296 at 300, Col 1; Wright v Jockey Club Sir Haydn Tudor Evans, (1995) Times, 16 June (QBD) 81

Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180 82

Rusell v. Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All ER 109 83

Modahl v. Baf (28th

july 1997, unreported) ; R v. Jocky Club [1993] 2 ALL ER 853 at 876B ; Enderby Town Football Club

v. Football Association (1971) Ch 591 at 605C – 607A 84

Wade administrative law (8th

edn, 2000, oxford) At pp 469-550. 85

Angus v. British judo association (1984) Times; Andrade v. Cape verde NOC CAS OG 1996/005 86

Angus v. British judo association (1984) Times

4TH



61. In the present case case, IFC passed the restriction order on the Applicant without receiving any proper

submissions or evidence from the B.C.CGo on the matter. Instead, the Applicants had received clean

chit from B.C.C.Go.87

62. Thus, it is contended that the principle of audi alteram partem was violated as the Applicant was not

given a chance to be heard before they were banned by the IFC. Accordingly, the order should be held

as invalid.

B. Applicant falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go and not IFC

63. If the deciding authority has no jurisdiction to decide on a particular matter, then any order passed by it

is void ab initio.88

Such orders are not “voidable”, but simply “void”; and form no bar to a recovery

sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them.89

A judgment is a “void judgment” if court that

rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner

inconsistent with due process.90

64. It is contended that restriction imposed by IFC on the Applicant is void as it does not have the

jurisdiction on any matter arising out of the Godam Premier League. The sub-contention is based on

the grounds that matches under GPL are under the jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go, and that the IFC is

required to respect the orders passed by B.C.C.Go.

B.1 GPL matches are under the jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go

65. According to the B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code, all matches that form part of the Godam Premier

League are considered to be domestic matches of Godam.91

For any such domestic matches played in

the territory of B.C.C.Go, if there is an allegation of a corrupt conduct, the B.C.C.Go will have the first

right to take action against the Participant92

and also the exclusive jurisdiction of to hear and determine

charges for the same.93

66. IFC is regulated by the IFC Anti-Corruption Code, according to which IFC can exercise its jurisdiction

to prevent corrupt practices only on international matches.94

87

Refer to Para 16, Page 7, Moot Proposition. 88

Mrs. Razia Satter v. Mr. Azizul Huq and others 2006 26 BLD 515; Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340

(1828) 89

Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) 90

Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092 ; Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp.

205 91

Definition ‘domestic match’ BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants 92

Article 1.8.1 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants; Rule 6.2.1 of Operational Rules for the 2013 Indian

Premier League 93

Article 1.3.4 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants. 94

Article 1.1.5 of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code For Participants

4TH



67. In the present case, the matter is concerned with the match fixing and spot fixing in the 6th

edition of

the GPL, where the allegations were made against the two players of the Applicant team and the

Applicant itself.

68. It is contended that as the matches of GPL are domestic matches, only B.C.C.Go can decide on the

disputes in the instant matter and not IFC.

B.2 IFC is required to respect the orders passed by B.C.C.Go

69. The B.C.C.Go Anti-Corruption Code provides that if B.C.C.Go makes any decision or imposes any

sanction with regard to matches in its jurisdiction, it should be recognized and respected by IFC and

the concerned GPL team.95

70. In the present case, when the allegation of corruption was made, B.C.C.Go had followed the required

procedure before giving the Applicant a clean chit such as asking to show cause as to why the players

were indulged in corrupt practices.96

Accordingly, the Applicant was given a clean chit by the

B.C.C.Go after it submitted the resignation of the two corrupt players.97

Despite this, it was restricted

by IFC to take part in any world event.98

71. As provided by the Code above, IFC should have respected the clean chit given to the Applicant and

not taken any action for the corruption allegations. Thus, IFC’s restriction is in clear violation of the

B.C.C.Go’s Anti-Corruption Code and accordingly should be held void.

C. Applicant took action against the corrupt players

72. It is an accepted practice that when allegations are made against specific players from within a

team, the liability extends only to those players, and not to the team or franchise.99

73. In the present case, after the 6th

edition of the Godam Premier League concluded, speculations of match

fixing and spot fixing were made against two players of Applicant team. On being asked to show cause

of such irregularities, Applicant submitted the suspension of the two corrupt players, namely Hank

Jefferson and Liam Jackson, which was approved by B.C.C.Go100

and confirmed by IFC.101

74. It is contended that only the players must be suspended and not their respective teams and thus, the

liability of MK for match fixing and spot fixing ended when it suspended the two players who were

found guilty of the same. Further, as there was no allegation imposed on any other player or any team

95

Article 7.2 of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants 96

Refer to Paragraph 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition. 97

Refer to Paragraph 15, Page 7, Moot Proposition. 98

Fact from moot proposition 99

Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA CAS 2010/A/2172; Westfield v, R [2012] EWCA Crim 1186; S. Sreesanth & Ors. v. State 100


Refer to Para 16, page 7, Moot proposition.

4TH



official of the Applicant, it would be unfair on the part of the innocent players to be restricted to

participate because their team members indulged in corrupt practices.

75. In pursuance of this, it is also contended that as it has been proved that MK were not guilty of

corruption102

, it is accordingly contended that the three sweat equity owners will also not be liable for

any such related charges.

76. Thus, the restriction imposed on the Applicant should be waived off and it be allowed to take part in

further events.

D. Restriction amounts to restrain of trade to the rest of the team

77. The doctrine of restraint of trade has provided a useful mechanism for challenging the actions of sports

governing bodies, principally where disciplinary has been taken on the basis of a rule that is

restrictive.103

All restraints of trade are void unless justified,104

that is was necessary to protect the

governing body’s legitimate interest.

78. In the instant matter, IFC restricted MK from playing in any world event105

because two of its players

were found guilty of match-fixing and spot-fixing.106

79. It is contended that this amounts to restraint of trade for all the other participants and players of

contracted with the MK and would also heavily if the team is restricted. IFC failed in justifying their

action and failed to do so in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

80. Therefore, it is submitted that MK was not rightly suspended by the IFC as applicant had already taken

action against the corrupt players and that it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go and not

IFC, the principle of natural justice was not followed and that restriction amounts to restrain of trade to

the rest of the team.

102

Article 2.1-2.4 of BCCI’s Code of Conduct 103

Adam Lewis and Jonathan Taylor, SPORT: LAW AND PRACTICE, (Butterworth LexisNexis Publication, 2003) 104

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns [1894] AC 535; Herbert Morris v. Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688 105

Refer to Para 16, Page 7, Moot Proposition 106

Refer to Para 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition

4TH


MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS xi

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble

High Court be pleased:

TO SET ASIDE

1. The suspension order imposed on Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson

2. The restriction order imposed on Mandeva Kites

3. The order convicting Xerxese, B.C.C.Go, Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morrenio

of corruption, match-fixing, spot-fixing, murder and other offences,

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

And for this, the Applicants as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS

before the honourable high court of godam€¦ · · 2016-11-11before the honourable high court...

Documents