Six years ago, the Delhi police pulled off a sensational breakthrough. They scooped up the first pieces of credible evidence that cricket matches were fixed. Until then, match-fixing was the subject of surmise and suspicion, sensational allegations and self-serving denials. However, policemen in New Delhi shook the quotidian complacency of the cash-rich bureaucracies of cricket at the national and international levels, and forced them to acknowledge the reality of 'cheating' in the game.

The Delhi police revelations were primarily a set of serendipitous tapes that recorded casual conversations between a bookie and, of all people, the captain of South Africa's cricket team, Hansie Cronje. It was routine surveillance on suspected extortionists that blew the cover off the best-known and least-acknowledged scandal in the subcontinent.

Cronje, after some initial denials, was suddenly gripped by contrition and made bold to unburden himself of the truth – before the King Commission in South Africa. In contrast, the Indian kingmakers, some of whom were found to be involved by the CBI, continue to live and thrive in a state of denial. A few were banned from the game and some were exonerated. However, the most significant aspect of the CBI report was that it concluded that there was no prosecutable case against the offenders as 'match-fixing' did not fall under the legal definition of 'cheating' given in Sec.

The CBI recommended only disciplinary action against those 'indicted' in its October 2000 report. The simple legal fact is – and our legally illiterate media should first be made aware of this – that there is nothing in the Indian Penal Code that makes 'match-fixing' a criminal offence. It is not this author's view alone. This was the view that the Central Bureau of Investigation took in October 2000 in its 162-page report to the government of the day after a wide-ranging probe into the entire gamut of match-fixing operations involving dishonest cricketers and avaricious bookies.

It is a telling commentary on our legal system that while offenders found guilty of misconduct, after the most detailed investigation ever made into corruption in sports anywhere, were let off without prosecution – on very sound legal grounds, one must add – foreign cricketers are sought to be treated as criminal defendants. Especially when it is well-known that even betting and gaming, from which all sports corruption flows, are not offences in most countries in the world.

Nor was the CBI merely airing its own view. It took sound legal opinion from eminent advisers, notable among them being Justice M. K. Mukherjee, a former judge of the Supreme Court. And both the CBI report and the Madhavan report (former CBI joint director K. Madhavan was appointed Commissioner by the Indian cricket board to hold an internal inquiry) quote extracts from Mukherjee's opinion on how there is virtually no possibility of bringing the facts of the match-fixing scam under the definition of either cheating (Sec.415 of IPC) or 'conspiracy' (in Sec.120-A of IPC) or provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

However, there is one institution in this country which refuses to accept the simple truth that the case for prosecution for match-fixing is largely tenuous. The Delhi police, which garnered accolades (mostly from within India, one should admit) for its role in unearthing the scam that outraged millions of cricket lovers cuckolded by their heroes, is still pursuing this case with sadistic tenacity.

Bogus certitude is not a great human quality. And this is what the Delhi police are displaying with their air of cocksureness about the validity of their prolonged and pointless criminal investigation into the 'match-fixing' scandal involving a set of punters, Gibbs and a few other South African cricketers.

The Delhi police had arrested some suspected bookies/punters in April 2000, but the courts released them after the statutory 60-day period during which the police failed to file its final report (charge-sheet). And it is the same case in which the police have consistently refused to give any assurance to Gibbs and Nicky Boje that they would not be arrested if they come to India.

The sections invoked against the 'accused' relate to conspiracy, cheating and fraud. Now, the general public should be told that under the semantic maze of Sec. 415 of IPC, 'deceiving' someone is the essential ingredient of 'cheating'. Now, it is a basic fact that while cricket administrators, spectators and television audiences may feel 'cheated' by those who under-performed in a match, there was never any commitment, contract, agreement or obligation in the first place on the part of the players that they would play to win. It is a game, after all, and monetary aspects like players' match fees, telecast rights, advertising rights, marketing rights, ticket price and sponsorships are not linked either to performance per se or to the promise of a sufficient level of performance.

One may appeal repeatedly to conscience, morality and honour, even national pride and emotions, but the ineluctable fact remains that there is no contract between the Board or the public and the players that the latter will aim to win, and aim only to win. The price for under-performance, even throwing away a match, can only be discharge from the team or withholding of fees, fines, suspensions or bans, but there is no case for a criminal prosecution.  There was, to begin with, never any false representation to be honest, except as a universal human assumption; nor is there a recognizable victim, a complainant, someone claiming to have been cheated. Of course, this does not mean that there is no civil remedy available to perceived victims. For much that does not amount to a crime may be considered a civil wrong, or tort. Also, money received, be it from the cricket board for playing a game or from bookies for tanking it, is something that the taxmen have to be told about.  Failure to do so will entail prosecution under the Income Tax Act.

Some day, the basic question of law will have to face a judicial test. One only hopes that on that day, the Delhi police do not bring disgrace to India. They can do the honourable thing even now by getting competent legal opinion instead of seeking to slake their thirst to interrogate an overseas cricketer for an imaginary conspiracy to 'cheat' an unspecified number of unknown people in a case that appears foredoomed to failure in any court of law.