Choudhary wreaks havoc before Tilak lifts Mumbai to 155/7
Navi Mumbai, Apr 21: Pacer Mukesh Choudhary wreaked havoc with the new ball before Tilak Varma's responsible half-century lifted Mumbai Indians to 155 for seven in the IPL here on Thursday.
Invited to bat, Choudhary (3/19) accounted for Rohit Sharma (0) and Ishan Kishan (0) in the first over and then dismissed Dewald Brewis (4), leaving Mumbai reeling at 23/3.
However, Varma's unbeaten 51 off 43 balls, in which he struck three fours and two sixes, along with Jaydev Unadkat's blazing unbeaten 19, helped Mumbai cross the 150 run-mark.
While Rohit offered an easy catch to Mitchell Santner at mid-on, Kishan was undone by a swinging yorker, which rattled his off-stump.
Brewis (4) became Choudhary's third victim. Brewis tried to chase a delivery outside the off stump, but ended up nicking to Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
Suryakumar Yadav (32) started with a boundary, an on drive. He creamed another drive off Choudhary and then launched into mystery spinner Maheesh Theekshana (1/35), sweeping him for a maximum. Mumbai were at 42/3 after the power-play.
But it was Mitchell Santner (1/16), who dismissed Surya, whose sweep was easily caught by Choudhary at long-leg and Mumbai were reduced to 47/4.
Then Tilak and debutant Hrithik Shokeen (25), tried to rally the innings, but managed to add only 41 runs for the fifth wicket. The duo was brutal on Ravindra Jadeja (0/30), who bled 13 runs in the 11th over, with Varma hitting a six with a slog-sweep.
Mumbai lost half their side for 85. Shokeen, who had three boundaries, top-edged a Dwayne Bravo (2/36) short-ball only to be caught at Robin Uthappa at mid-on.
Wickets kept tumbling for Mumbai with Kieron Pollard (14) and Daniel Sams (5) also falling cheaply.
But thanks to a quick-fire 35-run eight-wicket stand off 16 balls between Tilak and Unadkat, Mumbai gave their bowlers something to defend.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
MUDA case: Court reserves verdict in ED's petition challenging Lokayukta 'B' report
Bengaluru: The Special Court for People's Representatives, which heard the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the Lokayukta 'B' Report that stated Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had no role in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) illegal land allotment case, has reserved its verdict.
During the hearing, the Lokayukta's lawyer said that the petition filed by the ED is not allowed under the law. There is no clarity about the investigation in the ED's petition. The ED had given a letter and 27 documents to the Lokayukta police. Based on these documents, the Lokayukta Investigating Officer filed the 'B' Report.
The ED's letter was also leaked to the media. This letter and the documents are included on page 646 of the charge sheet. The Lokayukta Investigating Officer's opinion has also been recorded. The ED is not an aggrieved party and does not have the right to question the 'B' Report. The ED is not allowed to file such an interim application, lawyer Venkatesh Arabatdi argued, citing a Supreme Court verdict.
“The Lokayukta Investigating Officer examined all the documents collected by the police and others and gave their opinion. If the ED, a third party, is allowed to intervene, it will create complications,” lawyer Venkatesh Arabatdi urged, requesting that the ED's application not be considered.
Later, ED lawyer Madhukar Deshpande argued that the ED is a statutory informant under Section 66(2) of the PMLA Act. The ED’s powers were clarified in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case. Judgments in the Martin and Nagaraj cases in 2022 also upheld the ED's powers. The Supreme Court ruled that ED and local police investigations should be complementary. In such cases, the aggrieved person does not need to be directly affected. The ED can also file a complaint against the 'B' Report, he argued.
following which, the lawyer for the complainant, Snehamayi Krishna, argued that if any person provides information, they should be considered a witness.
But while the Lokayukta police gave one version, the ED gave another. The Lokayukta said the police had not considered the ED's report.
The court, after hearing all arguments, reserved its order for April 15.
