| Font Size - |
"Earlier, I was going to submit my report on Monday, but now I have decided to do it on Tuesday," Nanavati, who is probing the Sreesanth-Harbhajan episode, said.
"Change of date is due to busy schedule on Monday. I have to appear for some cases in the Gujarat High Court," Nanavati, who is an senior advocate, said, adding that the stipulated time of 15 days given to him to complete the inquiry also ends on Tuesday.
He also said he would not recommend any type of punishment to the players in his report.
"I will not recommend any sort of punishment to the players as I have been appointed to inquire about the incident under rule 32 of the BCCI," he said.
"I will have to submit my report on the incident to the Board President and he will forward it to the disciplinary committee which will decide about the quantum of punishment to be given to the person who is found guilty," Nanavati said adding that "it is up to them. They can even let off a person. This is a level four offence and if a player is found guilty the quantum of sentence is ban on playing large number of matches or even for lifetime. Mohammad Azharauddin and Ajay Jadeja are facing life time ban," said Nanavati in a reply to a question on what punishement a player can get if he is found guilty.
"I have completed hearing and viewing of video footage. I am in the process of writing my report which will be completed by tommorow," Nanavati added.
"I will submit my report to the Board officials on Tuesday in Mumbai," he further said.
Nanavati had summoned Harbhajan Singh and S Sreesanth on Friday to Ahmedabad and conducted the hearing in presence of BCCI Secretary Niranjan Shah.
After the hearing was over he had said that he was satisfied with the answers given by both the players. Mumbai Indian's stand-in skipper Harbhajan had slapped Kings XI Punjab's pacer Sreesanth after the April 25 Indian Premier League match in Mohali, which saw the off-spinner being banned from the remainder of the IPL, apart from losing nearly Rs 3 crore of match fee.
BCCI had also issued a showcause notice to Harbhajan before appointing Nanavati to probe the incident.
| Bookmark this Page |
|
RatingHow can Nanavati be so biased. He is a man of law how can there be the same punishment for someone stealing a bread and someone murdering somebody that is Death. This is unbelievable and it brings a very sad image and monopolistic view of the BCCI. It clearly shows BCCI is slowly becoming a politicalized entity and will ruin the cricket just like Hockey was ruined by other set of people. Only just rulings make stronger society. This view of Nanavati is totally unjust. I feel there is some element of Lalit Modi which comes here. Mr. Modi is using the BCCI as a tool to destroy the present Indian Team so that he can make huge money from IPL and then just leave the country drained. Afterall Mr. Modi is more American then he claims to be an Indian. There is no doubt that there is a bias against Mr. Harbhajan here but lets hope Mr. Pawar comes in and save a son of the soil from total destruction. OtherwiseI see no future for IPL or BCCI, if people will stop watching how will they make money
A true sportsman is expected to control his temper and be a good loser. Bhajji has been proving time and again that he is not. Such a person has no right to represent a country which respects its sportsmen. He should be awarded maximum punishment which will be an eye opener for other sportsmen.
BCCI appointed Commissioner Sudhir Nanavati is perfectly right that it is not in his terms of reference to recommend the quantum to punishment to those found guily. This being the job of the disciplinary committee who will judiciously decide the quanum of punishment to be awarded to the guilty, it is expected that a just and fair award will come through, keping in view the larger interests of the game of cricket.
Can somebody ask this fellow to stop giving media jabs and just do his job
It is not the Enquiry Officer's job to recommend punishment; his job is to conduct a fair, proper enquiry giving fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and on the basis of materials placed/available on recordthe charges are proved or not beyond all reasonable doubt; he can also give benefit of doubt to the accused person and say charges are not fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority decides the quantum of punishment considering the nature of the offence, misconduct etc. It can accept or reject the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer Nanavati but in doing so it must give cogent impartial reasonings. An appeal can be filed against the punishment order within the prescribed time limit.If Bhajji is inflicted a few more matches bans as a result of the Nanavati findings, his total loss might well exceed Rs.5 crores. What a very, very costly thappad.indeed. It is perhaps an eligible entry for Guinness Book of Records for the costliest ever thappad.
| Most Read Articles |
 |
