Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPETITION 2014
TeamCode: 14
petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF DELHI.
Respondent
WRITTENSUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHE PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES
B. STATUTES
C. BOOKS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACT
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
1) Whether the act of denial the clubbing of cases amounting to infringement of the
fundamental rights of accused?
Violation of article 21
Violation of right to live with human dignity
Violation of right to privacy
Violation of right to speedy trial
No agreement
Circumstantial evidence is unreliable
The prosecution unable to prove the guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Mens rea and actus reus is absent
Absence of requisite mens rea
5) Whether mr. amit sharma is liable for offence of fraud?
PRAYER
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
AIR
All
Cal
Cri LJ / Cr LJ
Cr.P.C.
Del
DW
Defence Witness
Ed.
Edition
Guj
IPC
IC
Indian Cases
Mad
n.
Ori
p.
Page No.
P&H
Pat
Del
Raj
SC
Supreme Court
4
SCJ
SCR
Sec.
Section
v.
Versus
I
NDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. CASES
1) Railway board v. chandrima das (2000) 2SCC 465
2) Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan,
3) Meneka Gandhi (Smt.) v. Union of India
4) Francis coralie v. union territory of delhi AIR 1994 SC 1844
5) M.Nagaraj v. union of india, (2006) 8 SCC 212
6) Kartar singh v. state of Punjab
7) State of W.B v. committee for protection of democratic rights (2010) 3 SCC 571
8) State of Punjab v. baldev sing AIR 1999 SC 2378
9) Directorate of revenue v. mohdnisarholia (2008) 2 SCC 370
10) Hussainarakhatoon v. home secretary, state of bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
11) Amitbhaianil Chandra shah v. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348
12) R v. Local Government Board, ex p Arlidge
5
B) WEBSITES:
1.
http://www.findlaw.com
2.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3.
http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4.
http://www.scconline.com
C) STATUTES
1. Constitution of India
2. Code of criminal procedure, 1973
3. Indian evidence Act, 1872
D) BOOKS AND OTHER AUTHORITES
1) Gaur, KD, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)
6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10
The Dwarka district court, Delhi on a police report filed in a FIR against Mr Sharma and baba
mataji in its local jurisdiction, took cognizance of the offence in the charge sheet and accordingly
issued warrants of arrest against Mr Sharma and baba mataji.
Dispute
The DCP (EOW) stated in his affidavit that the in such cases was a club the multiple FIRs into
one single FIR as the offence all formed a part and parcel of the same transaction viz. the
accused duping the public at large but Dwarka district court, Delhi disagreed with the reason of
the DCP. There was a great deal of inconsistency between the law as is, the law laid down by the
Honble supreme court of India and the practice of the police in such cases.
Special leave petition
11
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) Whether the act of denial the clubbing of cases amounting to infringement of the
fundamental rights of accused?
It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the act of denial the clubbing of cases
amounting to infringement of the basic and fundamental rights of accused which lead to injustice
with the accused.
13
No agreement
ii.
iii.
iv.
14
Whether the act of denial the clubbing of cases amounting to infringement of the
fundamental rights of accused?
Our constitution guarantees all the basic and fundamental human rights set out in the universal
declaration of human rights, 1948, to its citizens and other persons. The chapter dealing with the
fundamental rights is contained in part-III of the constitution. The purpose of part-III is to
15
The preamble of the Indian constitution emphasizes on the unity and integrity of the nation as
also on the dignity of the individual2.
Violation of article 21
6 State of W.B v. committee for protection of democratic rights (2010) 3 SCC 571
7 State of Punjab v. baldev sing AIR 1999 SC 2378
8 Directorate of revenue v. mohdnisarholia (2008) 2 SCC 370
9Hussainarakhatoon v. home secretary, state of bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
18
Administering criminal justice is a two end process, where guarding the ensured rights of the
accused under the constitution is as imperative as ensuring justice to the victim. It is definitely a
daunting task, but equally a compelling responsibility vested in the court of law to protect and
shield the right of both. Thus, a just balance between the fundamental rights of the accused
graranteed under the constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a
cognizable offence has to be struct by the court. Accordingly , the sweeping power of
investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable
offence10. As a consequence, this is a fit case for quashing the other FIR to meet the ends of
justice.
W
hether the act of denial the clubbing of cases amounting to infringement of the natural
justice principle or amounting to gross injustice?
Natural justice is indeed a humanising principle for it seeks to ensure that law is fair and just and
that there occurs no miscarriage of justice. The phrases substantial justice, fundamental
justice, universal justice or fair play in action also alludes to the notion of natural justice. It
functions on the basis of preconceptions such as man is basically good and hence he must not be
harmed and one ought to treat others as one would like oneself to be treated. it has been
criticized as sadly lacking in precision as per the 1914 decision of R v. Local Government
Board, ex p Arlidge12. In spite of its flaws, natural justice is widely accepted, adopted and
enforced and is considered an essential part of the philosophy of law. You may disagree with
the previous statement saying uncertainty of law is a cardinal sin. However, do bear in mind
that the vice of said uncertainty is far outweighed by virtues such as greater possibilities of
fairness and prevention of miscarriage of justice among others that the law of natural justice
offers. Natural justice mandates procedural fairness and hence seeks to make the decisionmaking process fair and reasonable. Actions of the public authorities are also subject to be
governed by the principles of natural justice. Such actions come under the ambit of
administrative law for it is the law that deals with the decision-making of administrative units of
the government (administrative tribunals, commissions etc).
11 Constitution of india
12(1914) 1 KB 160 (199).
20
Therefore, It is humbly request to this Honble court to quashing the other FIR to meet the ends
of justice.
W
hether it is the need of hour to come with and accurate legislation regarding clubbing of
FIRs?
It is the need of hour to come with and accurate legislation regarding clubbing of FIRs.a case
wherein in respect of the same cognizable offence and same occurrence two FIRs had been
lodged and the Court held that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt
of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences13.
In the instant case each and every transaction was same and no specific offence thus each
offence deserved a one trial.
The investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission of a
cognizable offence which is first entered in the Police Station diary by the Officer Incharge under Section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the
Cr.P.C.) and all other subsequent information would be covered by Section 162 Cr.P.C. for
the reason that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate the cognizable
13T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala &Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181
21
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honble court that in the matter, all FIR was club
into a single FIRs as the offence all formed a part and parcel of the same transaction viz. the
accused duping the public at large. Thus it is need of hour to come with and accurate legislation
regarding clubbing of FIR.
22
It is humbly contended that Mr. Amit Sharma ( hereinafter to be referred to as the accused) is not
guilty of the offence under sec. 120B of the Indian penal code, 1860 ( hereinafter to berefered to
as IPC ). In the matter at hand, it has been wrongfully alleged that the accused has committed the
offense of conspiracy. It is to be noted that essential elements of Sec. 120B are s follows:A. There should be an agreement between the person who are alleged to conspire.
B. The agreement should be
a. For doing an illegal act or
b. For doing by illegal means or act, which may not itself be illegal
C. In cases, other than an agreement to commit an offense, the agreement must be followed
by an overt act.
The ingredients of the offense of criminal conspiracy are clear that there should be an agreement
the person who are alleged to conspiracy, but in the matter, there was no agreement between Mr.
Sharma and Baba mete ji even there was no meeting of the mind to commit such crime of
conspiracy.
Russell on crime14 the gist of the offense of conspiracy, then lies not in doing the act or effecting
the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor attempting to do them, nor in inciting others
to do them , but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties, an agreement is
essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se enough.
No agreement
There was no agreement between baba mataji and accused to commit such fraud even there was
no meeting of the mind to commit such crime of conspiracy. But conspiracy consists in the
agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful
14 12th ed. Vol-1, p. 202
23
When even a link breaks away, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and other
circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts17. When attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the
Court must be firmly satisfied of the following three things:18
24
i. The circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must have
fully been established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt
The prosecution fails to pinpoint how the accused is solely responsible for securing
entrance to the accused or instigating the commission of the crime, notwithstanding
that the entire case rests solely upon uncorroborated circumstantial evidence.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the charge of
conspiracy against the accused cannot be made in the present matter.
The prosecution is unable to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt:
It is submitted that as per the Law of india, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Halsburys Laws of England
maintains that prosecution should prove to full criminal standards any fact essential to
admissibility of evidence19. The abovementioned arguments do prove that there lies a reasonable
doubt in all the charges framed against the accused.
19 Halsburys Laws of England 1374 (5th ed., Vol. 11.3, LexisNexis Butterworths 2010).
25
20 David Ormerod, Smith and Hogans Criminal Law,(13th Edition,Oxford University Press,2011)
21 Glanville Williams, Text Book Of Criminal Law,( 2nd Edition,Universal Law Publishing,1999)
22 The Digest 17 (1st ed., Vol 14 (2), London Butterworths & Co. Ltd. 1993).
26
W
hether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of fraud?
It is humbly contended that Mr. Amit Sharma (hereinafter to be referred to as the accused) is not
guilty of the offence under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. In the matter at hand, it has
been wrongfully alleged that the accused has committed the offence of fraud. It is to be noted
that the essential elements of fraud are as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
The above essential clearly states that Mr. Sharma is not liable for the offence of fraud because
He had no intention to deceive people. Neither he had knowledge about the falsity of Baba
Mataji nor he made any promise without the intention of performing it.
Fraud was defined in the well-known decision of the House of Lords by Lord Herschell as
Fraud is when it is sure that the false representation has been madea) Knowingly,
b) Without belief in its truth,
c) Recklessly careless whether it be true or false23.
The expression any other act fitted to deceive naturally means any act which is done with the
obvious intention of committing fraud24.
Innocent misrepresentation- when a person makes a false statement but there is neither an
intention to deceive, nor any negligence in making the statement, there is no liability for such a
23 Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
24Ningawwa v ByrappaShiddappaHirekurabar, AIR 1968 S.C. 956MuktilalAgarwal v trustees of the P.F. A.I.R.
1956 S.C. 336
27
For the accused to be convicted it has to be substantiated that the fraudulent representation was
caused by his own actions. In the instant matter, the evidence offered fails to ascertain the same.
Accused did not false representation knowingly. He did not know about the truth and believed
that baba mataji has power to triplicate money even though mr.sharma was a bit skeptical of this
28
W
hether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of cheating?
It is humbly submitted that the accused did not commit or attempt to commit offence of cheating
nor did he act conjointly with the other and coupled with heavy reliance by the prosecution on
unreliable presumption evidence.
The only concept known to law is crime; and the crime exists only when actus reus and mens rea
coincide. It is established that if there were two acts and the first act, though accompanied by the
mens rea did not lead to the commission of the crime, whereas the second act, not accompanied
by the mens rea caused the injury, the accused must be acquitted. 29In the present case there is no
coincidence between the two and hence no crime has been committed.
In light of the contentions made by the petitioner it is most humbly contended that the elements
of crime are absent.
P
RAYER
In lights of the facts presented, questions raised, arguments advanced and authority cited the
counsels for the Respondent most humbly and respectfully pray before this Honble Court, that it
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
a) The petition filled by the Petitioner is maintainable. .
b) To consolidate and club all the cases against him in one single trial.
c) Each and every transaction was a same and no specific offence and thus each offence
does not deserve a separate trail.
d) In order to grant a bail.
The Court being satisfied may also make any such order as it may deem fit in the light of Justice,
Equity and Good conscience.
And for this act of kindness the Respondent shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Respectfully submitted,
32
33