Shreesanth proved not guilty in courts.There enough scandales in ICCI but everybody was given clean chit.You cannot destroy the cricketor.He has to prove with his performance.
Sreesanth had himself confessed to match fixing & even explained the tactic of putting his handkerchief in a particular way. Now you judge? Is Sreesanth innocent saint or is he guilty? Just bec a lousy prosecutor couldn't prove the case & bungled it up, doesn't mean that Sreesanth is a saint. A different prosecutor & sometimes a different judge would have got his conviction. His ban is totally justified. Even Azaruddin was guilty but let off & went on to become a MP. Just forget Sreesant & move on. He was no match winner on field. He was an embarrassment on the field.
Re: Sreesanth -A saint.
by Clear Mind on Aug 03, 2015 09:11 AM
I think you are talking about what the Delhi police were saying. The court examined everything and said he is innocent.
Re: Sreesanth -A saint.
by Clear Mind on Aug 03, 2015 09:13 AM
About being a match winner, he was the reason for India winning the only test match in south africa.
Sreesanth had himself confessed to match fixing & even explained the tactic of putting his handkerchief in a particular way. Now you judge? Is Sreesanth innocent saint or is he guilty? Just bec a lousy prosecutor couldn't prove the case & bungled it up, doesn't mean that Sreesanth is a saint. A different prosecutor & sometimes a different judge would have got his conviction. His ban is totally justified. Even Azaruddin was guilty but let off & went on to become a MP. Just forget Sreesant & move on. He was no match winner on field. He was an embarrassment on the field.
Sreesanth had himself confessed to match fixing & even explained the tactic of putting his handkerchief in a particular way. Now you judge? Is Sreesanth innocent saint or is he guilty? Just bec a lousy prosecutor couldn't prove the case & bungled it up, doesn't mean that Sreesanth is a saint. A different prosecutor & sometimes a different judge would have got his conviction. His ban is totally justified. Even Azaruddin was guilty but let off & went on to become a MP. Just forget Sreesant & move on. He was no match winner on field. He was an embarrassment on the field.
Sreesanth had himself confessed to match fixing & even explained the tactic of putting his handkerchief in a particular way. Now you judge? Is Sreesanth innocent saint or is he guilty? Just bec a lousy prosecutor couldn't prove the case & bungled it up, doesn't mean that Sreesanth is a saint. A different prosecutor & sometimes a different judge would have got his conviction. His ban is totally justified. Even Azaruddin was guilty but let off & went on to become a MP. Just forget Sreesant & move on. He was no match winner on field. He was an embarrassment on the field.
Doesn't a CM known this basic principle of law - A criminal case runs independent of the civil case. His aquittal only means that the "crime" he committed does not warrant criminal punishment / imprisonment. But the "crime" per se stands even now unless BCCI appoints a new committee that rescinds the decision on the previous one.
Re: Ignorance of the law....
by Clear Mind on Aug 02, 2015 06:51 PM
Didn't you see the court's observation, there is no criminal or civil case. It was thrown out.
Support for Sreesanth will continue to grow and finally BCCI will have to sheepishly admit its fault and reinstate him.
Look how a South Indian is supported by political parties..North Indians and North Indian politicians should learn from them. A simple advice North Indians and North Indian politicians. Instead of working and supporting congress parties political interests, work for the welfare of your people and your state as it is happening in South.
