A few months ago a Uttar Pradesh cricketer alleged that Akram Saifi, who was assistant to IPL chairman Rajiv Shukla had asked the player to arrange prostitutes in return for his selection in the team. However, Akram has now been given a clean chit after a probe by retired judge Chandramouli Kumar Prasad, who held the sex-for-selection accusations against Saifi leveled by Rahul Sharma to be “untrue, untrustworthy and fit to be rejected”.

The report suggested that this case was a classic example of loose talk by an individual who attempted to pull down the image of the organization. The report stated that Sharma withdrew his accusations, stating that he had made them out of “frustration”.

On July 18 a sting operation carried by local news channel News1 ran a story where Akram was accused of asking was accused of asking Shamra for arranging prostitutes in return for team selection.

ALSO READ: Danish Kaneria accepts his involvement in 2009 spot-fixing scandal

The player Sharma also charged Saifi of being involved in corruption and issuing fake age certificates to participate in age-group tournaments conducted by the Indian cricket board. In the report, Prasad explained that he had asked the player whether he has any material by way of evidence and asked him to explain the allegation in detail. Sharma later submitted an affidavit where he wanted to withdrew the allegation.

In his report submitted to UPCA, Prasad wrote, “At the outset, he submitted an affidavit dated 26th July 2018, wherein he has stated that he seeks to withdraw the allegations made on national news and that he does not want to proceed further. He (Sharma) has further requested in the affidavit that the issue/matter may be closed. When asked the reasons for withdrawal of allegations, he stated that he had made these allegations due to frustration for not being selected for the state cricket team.”

ALSO READ: Rajiv Shukla’s Assistant Alleged In Bribery Scandal

UPCA’s ombudsman further stated that Akram came across as a person who wielded clout in selection matters. The report further added, “He stated that Akram projected himself to be a person who had a say in a matter of selection of the cricket team by the UPCA, but subsequently, clarified that those statements were not made seriously. Nevertheless, the Complainant also said that after actually participating in and experiencing the actual selection, he is of the view that it is robust and streamlined and is not capable of being manipulated by any one individual, whether it is Akram or even an office bearer of the UPCA.”