3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
TeamCode: 14

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI, INDIA
Petition filed
under Article 136
Of the Constitution of
India
SLP ( Cr.)NO./2012

MR. AMIT SHARMA

petitioner
Vs.

STATE OF DELHI.

Respondent

WRITTENSUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHE PETITIONER

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Honble Chief

Justice of India & other Companion Judges of the
Honble Supreme Court of India

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
2) Whether the act of denial the clubbing of cases amounting to infringement of the
natural justice principle or amounting to gross injustice?
Violation of criminal natural justice principle
3) Whether it is the need of hour to come with and accurate legislation regarding
clubbing of firs?

4) Whether mr. amit sharma is liable for offence of conspiracy?

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?

There is no actus reus on the part of the accused

There alleged fraudulent representation cannot be attributed to accused
6) Whether Mr. Amit sharma is liable for offence of cheating?

False or misleading representation

Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of person
Intention to defraud is absent
No mens rea as to circumstances
No coincidence between actus reus and mens rea
3

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

PRAYER

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR

All India Reporter

All

Allahabad High Court

Cal

Calcutta High Court

Cri LJ / Cr LJ

Criminal Law Journal

Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Del

Delhi High Court

DW

Defence Witness

Ed.

Edition

Guj

Gujarat High Court

IPC

Indian Penal Code

IC

Indian Cases

Mad

Madras High Court

n.

Foot Note no.

Ori

Orissa High Court

p.

Page No.

P&H

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat

Patna High Court

Del

Delhi high court

Raj

Rajasthan High Court

SC

Supreme Court
4

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
SCC

Supreme Court Cases

SCJ

Supreme Court Journal

SCR

Supreme Court Reporter

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
13) T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala &Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181
14) Mohan Lalv. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC
15) JanarLal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27;
16)
Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
17)
Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
18) Mahmoodv. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69
19) Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
20) Ningawwa v ByrappaShiddappaHirekurabar, AIR 1968 S.C. 956
21) MuktilalAgarwal v trustees of the P.F. A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 336
22) Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd. V Heller and Partners (1964) A.C. 495
23) Indian oil corpn. V. NEPC india Ltd. (2006) 3 SCC (cri) 188

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
2) Gupte and Dighe, Criminal Manual, (7th Ed. 2007)
3) Harris, Criminal Law, (22nd Ed. 2000)
4) Hill, McGraw, Criminal Investigation, (4th Ed. 2004)
5) I, III, IV Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)
6) I, Kathuria, R.P. Supreme Court on Criminal Law, 1950-2002, ( 6th Ed. 2002)
7) II, Mitra, B.B., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (20th ed. 2006)
8) II, Nandi, Criminal Ready Referencer, ( 2nd Ed. 2007)
9) II, PrincepsCommentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (18th ed. 2005)
10) III, Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)
11) Kelkar, R.V. Criminal Procedure, (5th Ed. 2011)
12) Lal, Batuk, The Law of Evidence, (18th Ed. 2010)
13) Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 33rd Ed. (2011)
14) Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, 22nd Ed. (2006)
15) Varshi, H.P. Criminal Trial and Judgment, (3rd ed. 1981)
16) Tyagi, SurendraPrakash, Criminal Trial (2nd ed. 1996)
17) D.D Bashu,Commentry On the constitution of India 5576(8th ed. , 2007)
18) M.P Jain, Indian constitution law 235 (5th ed. 2009)

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANTS HAVE APPROACHED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. LEAVE HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND THE MATTER HAS NOW BEEN
POSTED FOR FINAL HEARING. ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
READS AS HEREUNDER:

136. SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT.

(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS CHAPTER, THE SUPREME COURT MAY, IN

ITS DISCRETION,GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM ANY JUDGMENT, DECREE,
DETERMINATION, SENTENCE OR ORDER IN ANY CAUSE OR MATTER PASSED OR MADE
BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL IN THE TERRITORY OFINDIA.

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
(2) NOTHING IN CLAUSE (1) SHALL APPLY TO ANY JUDGMENT, DETERMINATION,
SENTENCE OR ORDER PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED
BY OR UNDER ANY LAW RELATING TO THEARMED FORCES.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

History and background

Mr. Amit Sharma, aged 34 years, is a brilliant investment banker. He lives in Mumbai with his
wife, a housewife, and 2 minor children aged 7 years and 9 years respectively along with his
mother aged 70 years. He is working as the managing director at a reputed Tarcorp company.
During official travels he often came across highly influential businessmen, politicians, bankers,
as well as local regional leaders and many self-styled godmen.
Meet baba mataji
During one such travel he met one Baba Mataji, a Godman who claimed to be blessed by a
particular deity and claimed to have possessed her powers. Mr Sharma started to discuss his
business dealings with Baba Mataji in order to gain insights and predictions about the actions of
his rivals. In a show of love and affection, Baba Mataji has revealed to Mr Sharma one of his
biggest secret the power to triplicate money in a matter of days by chanting mantras.
9

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
Convinced with babaji
Baba mataji asked Mr. Sharma for lump sum of Rs. 1 lakhs to demonstrate the power. Although
Mr Sharma was a bit sceptical of this new power he gave the money and was convinced when
baba converted his Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 3 lac just in day.
Recommend to other person
Later on Mr. Sharma began to publicly vouch for apparent power of Baba Mataji and on his
persuasion began to recommend him to his acquaintances which consisted of the highly
influential businessman, politicians, bankers, as well as local regional leaders. He impressed
upon them the magnitude of the power of Baba, especially the one for triplicate the money and
started collecting money from them in order that they too benefit from Baba. Hundreds of people
all over India on the faith of representations of Mr. Sharma gave large amount of money to him.
Large scale ceremony as once-in-lifetime
After the period of 4 months Baba Mataji impressed upon Mr. Sharma of his desire to perform a
large scale ceremony wherein he would multiply the given money 7 times. Baba Mataji wanted
to increase their wealth, so he started convincing the people. Accordingly he asked Mr. Sharma
to label the ceremony as once in lifetime chance and demands sums from the people on his
name. Accordingly Mr. Sharma travelled length and breadth of India and collected money.
Baba mataji vacant with large money
People all over india gave huge sums of money to mr. Sharma. Some people even gave up their
life savings, so that they may benefit from Baba. Mr. Sharma accordingly collected money from
1897 people in India amounting Rs. 150 crores and gave it to Baba.
After 21 days Mr Sharma deposited the money with Baba. He was intimated by his bank in
Mumbai that Rs. 25 crores have been credited to his account. Mr Sharma went to Baba for the
collection of money for disbursal. Upon his arrival he found the residence of Baba vacant and

10

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
the money missing, even nobody knew where the Baba was. Mr Sharma believed that Baba had
miraculously managed to credit the money to the people to whom it was so owed and went back
home.
First FIR Filed
After 14 days Mr Sharma received the first phone call from one of investors who demanded the
status of the money. Mr Sharma denied having the knowledge of the money or of Baba. Soon the
word of the missing Baba and money.Mr Sharma was swamped with calls all over India. Two
days later, many FIRs was filed against Mr Sharma and Baba Mataji alleging fraud, conspiracy
and cheating, at Mysore and Karnataka. Soon FIRS all over India were lodged against Mr
Sharma and Baba on same or similar grounds. In total, to this date, 1774 FIRs lodged against
them in India.
Took cognizance

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
MrSharma , immediately filed a special leave petition in the supreme court praying that the
Honble court maybe pleased to consolidate and club all the cases against him in one single trial.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

1) WHETHER THE ACT OF DENIAL THE CLUBBING OF CASES

AMOUNTING TO INFRINGEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
ACCUSED?
2) WHETHER THE ACT OF DENIAL THE CLUBBING OF CASES
AMOUNTING TO INFRINGEMENT OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE
PRINCIPLE OR AMOUNTING TO GROSS INJUSTICE?
3) WHETHER IT IS THE NEED OF HOUR TO COME WITH AND ACCURATE
LEGISLATION REGARDING CLUBBING OF FIRS?

12

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
4) WHETHER MR. AMIT SHARMA IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCE OF
CONSPIRACY?
5) WHETHER MR. AMIT SHARMA IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCE OF FRAUD?
6) WHETHER MR. AMIT SHARMA IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCE OF
CHEATING?

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
2) Whether the act of denial the clubbing of cases amounting to infringement of the
natural justice principle or amounting to gross injustice?
It is humbly that accused had faced multiplicity of legal proceeding against him in all over India
which violate the procedural fairness and principle of natural justice. There is uncertainty in the
position of law regarding clubbing FIRs leads to violation of principle of natural justice.
Therefore, It is humbly request to this Honble court to quashing the other FIR to meet the ends
of justice.
3) Whether it is the need of hour to come with and accurate legislation regarding
clubbing of FIRs?
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.
4) Whether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of conspiracy?
It is humbly submitted that accused does not committed such offence of conspiracy on the
following ground:i.

No agreement

ii.

Circumstantial evidence is unreliable

iii.

The allegation is fallacious as mens rea and actus reus is absent

iv.

Absence of requisite mens rea

5) Whether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of fraud?

It is humbly submitted that 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

14

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
mr.sharma was a bit skeptical of this new power he gave the money and was convinced when
baba converted his 1 lac to 3 lac just in days . Therefore, it is humbly submitted that accused did
not commit such offence

6) Whether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of cheating?

It is humbly submitted that accused did not false or mislead representation and prosecution was
unable to prove of intention of defraud.

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
safeguard the basic human rights from the vicissitudes of political controversy and to place them
beyond the reach of the political parties who, by virtue of their majority, may come to form the
government at the center or in the state.
The fundamental rights are available to all the citizens of the country but a few of them are also
available to persons. The word life has also been used prominently in the universal declaration of
human rights, 1948. The fundamental rights under the constitution almost in consonance with the
right contained in the universal declaration of human rights as also the declaration and the
covenants of civil and political rights and the covenants of economic , social and cultural rights,
to which India is party having ratified them. They also have a right to life in this country. Thus
they also have the right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity. Just as the state is
under an obligation to protect the life of every citizen in this country, so also the state is under an
obligation to protect the life of the persons who are not citizens1.
Therefore, accused is citizen of India and he is entitled for the protection against fundamental
rights.

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

1 Railway board v. chandrima das (2000) 2SCC 465

2Santoshmehandev, dynamics of indianconstitution , constitution of indian-in precept and practice, pp.
126-127( edited by C.K jain, secretary general , loksabha secretariat.)
16

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
Article 213reads, no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law. Article 21 of the Indian constitution envisages a right to life with
human dignity. The word life under art. 21 means quality of life 4 which includes the right to
live with human dignity. In the leading case of Kishore Singh RavinderDev v. State of
Rajasthan, it was said that the laws of India i.e. Constitutional, Evidentiary and procedural have
made elaborate provisions for safeguarding the rights of the accused with the view to protect his
(accused) dignity as a human being and giving him benefits of a just, fair and impartial trail.
However, in another leading case of Meneka Gandhi (Smt.) v. Union of India it was interpreted
that the procedure adopted by the state must, therefore, be just, fair and reasonable. The court
gave a new dimension to the art. 21 and held that the right to live is not merely confined to
physical existence, but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity.
It is humbly submitted that in the instant case, accused has faced rigors of multiple trials all over
India for one offence which unable to amount an effective defense against the allegation. It
violates the basic and fundamental right of accused.

Violation of right to live with dignity

The expression life in article 21 of the Indian constitution does not connote merely physical or
animal existence. The right to life includes right to live with human dignity. It is duty of the state
not only to protect human dignity but facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction. Every
human being has dignity by virtue of his existence 5. All those aspects of life, which make a
person live with human dignity are included within the meaning of the word life. The state has a
duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation
3 Indian constitution of india, article 21
4 Francis coralie v. union territory of delhi AIR 1994 SC 1844
5M.Nagaraj v. union of india, (2006) 8 SCC 212
17

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence. 6 In the instant case, state is
unable to provide fair and impartial trail to accused which violate the human rights.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of
criminal offence is the cornerstone of democracy. Conducting a fair trial is beneficial both to the
accused as well as to the society. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our
concept of justice.7

Violation Right to privacy

Article of 21 of the constitution of India provides protection citizen from oppression and
injustice on the other. It shall be strikes a balance between the enforcement of law and protection
of the valuable human rights of an accused must be resorted to. In the instant case valuable
human right of accused right to privacy has been violated8.

Violation of right to speedy trial

The Supreme Court has laid great emphasis on speedy trial of criminal offence, and has
emphasized it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of article 21 9. A fair trial implies
speedy trial. No procedure can be reasonable, fair or just unless that procedure ensures a speedy
trial for determination of the guilty of such person.
In the case kartarsingh v. state of Punjab the court has observed that the concept of speedy trial is
read into article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and
preserved under our constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint
imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result
from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it
consummates into a finality, can be averred.
It is humbly submitted that accused has faced rigors of multiple trials all over India which lead to
violation of speedy trial and he would spend the rest of his natural life fighting off the cases.

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?

10Amitbhaianil Chandra shah v. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348

19

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
Preamble of the constitution11 includes the words, justice social, economic and political liberty
of thought, belief, worship..and equality of status and of opportunity, which not only ensures
fairness in social and economic activities of the people but also acts as shield to individuals
liberty against the arbitrary action which is the base for principle of natural justice.

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
It is content that accused had faced multiplicity of legal proceeding against him in all over India
which violate the procedural fairness and principle of natural justice. There is uncertainty in the
position of law regarding clubbing FIRs leads to violation of principle of natural justice.

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
offence report in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in
the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and the Investigating Officer has to
file one or more reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Even after submission of the report
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if the Investigating Officer comes across any further information
pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, but it is desirable that he must
take the leave of the court and forward the further evidence, if any, with further report or reports
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. In case the officer receives more than one piece of information in
respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences
such information cannot properly be treated as an FIR as it would, in effect, be a second FIR and
the same is not in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C.
The court further observed that A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens
under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate
a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that subsection (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain
further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a
citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise
to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs.

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
W
hether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of conspiracy?

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
means. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The
agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy
arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made. The actusreus in a
conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. It is not
enough that two or more person pursued the same unlawful object at the same time or in the
same place, it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful
purpose. It is not however necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication
with every other.15

Circumstantial evidence is unreliable

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial
evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstanced in the chain of
evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to
.

rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused16

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

15Halsbury;s laws of England (4th ed., vol.11, p.44,p.58)

16Mohan Lalv. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC
17JanarLal Das v. State of Orissa, 1991 (3) SCC 27; A. Jayaram and An r. v. State of AP, AIR 1995 SC 2128.
18Mahmoodv. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 69

24

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

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

ii. The circumstances are of determinative tendency, unerringly pointing towards

the guilt of the accused

iii. The circumstances taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any

reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt sought to be proved against him

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.

The conviction is fallacious as mens rea and actus reus is absent

19 Halsburys Laws of England 1374 (5th ed., Vol. 11.3, LexisNexis Butterworths 2010).

25

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a crime
unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt both (a) that responsibility is attributed
to the accused for a certain behaviour or the existence of a certain state of affairs, in
circumstances forbidden by criminal law and that the accused has caused the prescribed event
and (b) that the accused had a defined state of mind in relation to the behaviour, existence of a
state of affairs or causing of the event. 20In other words in every case the two elements of crime;
actus reus and mens rea have to be proved.

Absence of requisite mens rea

A criminal act generally requires some element of wrongful intent or other fault. 21 This is known
as mens rea or guilty mind.22 In the instant matter, the accused has been convicted of the offences
of Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy. It is submitted that the mens rea for either of the crimes is
absent in the instant matter.

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

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)

Intent to deceive another party;

Knowledge about the falsity of the statement;
A promise made without any intention of performing it;
Any act fitted to deceive.

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
statement under law of torts because in such a case an action cannot lie either for fraud ,or for
negligent misstatement.25
Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by
another party thereto and as a result thereof, he has suffered a loss, then, if a person making the
misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof, had the misrepresentation been
made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was
not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he has reasonable ground to believe and did believe
up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true26.
There is no actus reus on the part of the accused
The physical element of a crime or behaviour connected to the crime is called the actus reus.A
person must participate in all the acts necessary to constitute a particular crime in order to be
guilty thereof27. In the present case, there has been no establishment that the accused was
responsible for the alleged fraudulent representation or that he conspired to do the same.

The alleged fraudulent representation cannot be attributed to accused:

It is a widely accepted principle of common law that the prosecution must prove that the accused
by his own act caused the relevant result and it should be an intended causation.

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

25 Law of torts, R.K. Bangia

26 Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd. V Heller and Partners (1964) A.C. 495
27 Scott v. Com., Ky. 353, 197 S.W. 2d 774 (1946).

28

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
new power he gave the money and was convinced when baba converted his 1 lac to 3 lac just in
days . Therefore, it is humbly submitted that accused did not commit such offence.

W
hether Mr. Amit Sharma is liable for offence of cheating?

It is humbly contended before this Honble Court that MrAmitsharma (hereinafter to

be referred to as the accused) is not guilty of the offences under Sec. 420 of the
IndianPenal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as theIPC). In the matter at hand, it
has beenwrongfully alleged that the accused has committed offence of cheating. Sec
420 deals with certain aggravated forms or specified classes of cheating. To constitute
an offence under section, the essential ingredients are as follows28:-

a) Deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other

action or omission

b) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to

consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person to do
or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property.
28Indian oil corpn. V. NEPC india Ltd. (2006) 3 SCC (cri) 188
29

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

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.

False or misleading representation

It is contended that the accused did not mislead the people all over the india even they did not
know about baba mataji had intent to committed such fraud. He did not deceit the people for
multiply the money. Accused have no knowledge about the deception at that time. He believed
on baba without any wrongful intention .
Therefore, it is content those accused did not false or mislead representation. Hence he would
not be liable for cheating.

Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of person

Accused did not dishonestly or fraudulently induce the people all over India. All people were
believed on baba mataji and give their money.

Intention to defraud is absent:

The most basic ingredient of the offence of cheating under 420 of the in IPC is intent to
defraud. Intention forms the gist of the offence. Intention literally means a conscious movement
with knowledge of the circumstances. In the present matter, the accused has alleged that money
was obtained by accused on the basis of a fraudulent representation. To entrap the accused it is
necessary to prove that he had the intention or knowledge that the act in question was fraudulent
in nature. The Prosecution has presented no such evidence so as to ascertain that there existed
such an intention.
30

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

No mens rea as to circumstances:

The evidentiary burden in the instant matter lies with the Prosecution. A guilty state of mind of
the accused has to be established. The Prosecution at best can prove the blameworthy mind of
the Group. The accused, in the instant matter, had no intention to commit the offences. As
Glanville Williams observed that the proof of a mans intention can be probed by determining
whether there is a any reasonable interpretation of his actions other than the hypothesis that he
intended the consequences.

It is contended that there exists no mens rea in the present case.

No coincidence between actus reus and mens rea:

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.

29 R v. Khandu, (1890) ILR 15 Bom 195; R v. Shorty, [1950] SR

31

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014

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

3rd INDRAPRASTHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2014
(Counsels Appearing for petitioner)

33