Hours after the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) Anti-Corruption Unit gave Mohammed Shami a clean chit, lawyer of the cricketer's wife Hasin Jahan said that his client had never verbally or in writing made match-fixing allegations against Shami.
BCCI's Anti-Corruption Unit on Thursday gave a clean chit to Shami and also included the pacer in Grade B of the board's annual retainer contracts after they found no evidence of match-fixing against the Indian pacer.
It was confirmed that the ACU head Neeraj Kumar had submitted his confidential report to the Committee of Administrators (CoA) and that the Supreme Court-appointed committee was of the view that there is no further action required against Shami under the BCCI anti-corruption code.
Disappointed with the decision, Hasin Jahan's lawyer Zakir Hussain asked what parameters were BCCI's investigations based on, while adding that his client's allegation was never about match-fixing.
“My client's allegation was never about match-fixing. I cannot raise any allegation on BCCI, but I want to know on what basis and parameters was BCCI's investigation based. We never made direct allegations of match-fixing on Mohammed Shami. Neither verbally nor in written (sic) ,” Hussain told the reporters.
Last week, the Supreme Court-appointed CoA had written to the BCCI's ACU head Neeraj Kumar to investigate the charges levelled against Shami by his wife.
The CoA, led by Vinod Rai, had given a seven-day deadline to Kumar to submit the report on the issue.
This direction came after cricketer's wife levelled various allegations, including of match-fixing, against the fast bowler.
Though Jahan retracted the fixing allegation, the CoA had taken note of it and asked the ACU to investigate the matter.
Earlier, a case was also registered against Shami on the basis of a written complaint filed by his wife, who has claimed that Shami has been having extra-marital affairs and abusing her physically and mentally.
However, Shami had rejected all the allegations and said that someone was misleading his wife.