THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016Team Code: A-58 THE 5TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT _____________________________________________________________________________ SATNAM SINGH and ANOTHER……………………………..APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB…………………………………………….RESPONDENT ________________________________________________________________________ UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 1 THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 CONTENTS 1. List of Abbreviations 3 2. List of Authorities 4 a. List of Cases 5 b. Books 5 c. Legal Database 5 d. Lexicons 5 e. Legislations 5 3. Statement of Jurisdiction 6 4. Statement of Facts 7 5. Statement of Issues 9 6. Summary of Arguments 10 7. Arguments Advanced 11 8. Prayer 25 Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 2 ..................Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 11) No.…..................P..................Criminal 7) Govt...................Assistant 3) Bom..........................Page 14) r/w.................…Kilogram 9) NCT................................................................Criminal Law Journal 5) Cr.................................................................................Read with 15) S..............................................................................Supreme Court 17) SCC…...........................................................................................................................Criminal Procedure Code 6) Cri.............................…Government 8) Kg.......................................................J…..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................…National Capital Territory 10) NDPS….....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................All India Report 2) Asstt….......................................................................................Sub-section 20) u/s…................................................................................................................L.....C.......Special Leave Petition 19) Ss............................................................... THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION.............................................................................................................................................................Others 13) P.................................................................................................................................................................................................….................................................. 2016 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1) AIR…....................…........................................................…Section 16) SC...........................................................................Supreme Court Cases 18) SLP…...................................Versus 22) ¶…………………………………………………………………………………Paragraph Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 3 .................................................................................Bombay 4) Cr..................................................Under Section 21) v...........…Number 12) Ors................................................................................…................................ 197. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350. Satpal @ Pala vs. v. 11. Sundar Singh v. 10. 2013 Indlaw UTT 119. A. (2014) 6 SCC 639. State of Madhya Pradesh. Raghunandan v. 15. 1974 AIR 463. Appeal No. [1955] A.P. State. 18. 3. AIR 1964 TRI 45. Bahadur Singh v. Usman Haidarkhan Shaikh v State of Maharashtra. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 4 . Leathem. 14. 1990 (3) BomCR 181. State of Haryana. Prema Shah v. State of Uttarakhand. State of Delhi CRL. No. (1861) 8 Cox CC 498.C. AIR 1956 SC 411. No. App. 7. State of Haryana. 16. M. Om Prakash v. Makhan Singh v State of Haryana. 13. State of Uttar Pradesh. 453 of 2014. (2010) 3 SCC 746. Kuruma vs the Queen. 682 of 2015. 9. 6. Crl. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION.175-Sb of 2001. State of Kerala. 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal) 412. 12. v. 4. State of Punjab.A. 2016 LIST OF AUTHORITIES LIST OF CASES 1. 1902 of 2009. Basau Ram Alias Om Nath v State of Haryana. 5. No. In Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. Regina v. Ajmer Singh v. Cr. 8. Munsar Ali and Others v Union Territory of Tripura. Cr. State of Haryana. Cr. CRA-D 495-DB of 2005. Gurmit and others v State of Haryana. 2002 (3) SCR 53. Man Singh @ Mana & Anr. 2. State of H. 17. M-17238 of 2013 (O&M). Manjit Singh@Raju v. Interpretation of Statutes. 1872 Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 5 . Nagpur LEGAL DATABASE: 1. Butterworths Wadhwa. Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa. Eastern Book Company. SCC Online 3. Sharma & Mago. S. Black‟s Law Dictionary. 10th Edition 2012. Concise Law Dictionary. 5. 10th Edition. Law of Evidence. 3rd Edition. New Delhi. Nagpur 4. 3rd edition. Code of Criminal Procedure. Vol. Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa. Manupatra 2. C. Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. Lucknow 2. 2014. The Code of Criminal Procedure. The Indian Evidence Act. Criminal law. Pillai PSA. 2009. Lexis Nexis. 10th Edition. Bindra NS. 1999 2. Woodroffe and Amir Ali. Nagpur 3. 2. 2011 LEGISLATION: 1. P. 19th Edition 2012. Garner Bryana. Westlaw 4. 7th Edition. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Laws. Sarkar. Ramanatha Aiyar. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2016 BOOKS: 1. 1985 2. 1973 3. Hein Online LEXICONS: 1. P.C. The appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court against the order of conviction of Special Court. Under Section 374” reads as: Appeals from convictions: (2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 6 . 2016 STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION The appellants humbly submits to the Hon’ble High Court of Patiala that it has the jurisdiction to try. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. may appeal to the High Court. entertain and dispose the present matter under Section 374 (2) Cr. The respondent submits that the petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. “The Criminal Procedure Code. When Satnam Singh contacted Sub Inspector Hakam Singh at 11 am on 8th January 2015. 18 (c). Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 7 . 8 (c) read with Ss. 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act. Both Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh were put in the lock up. Taking benefit of the absence of Satnam Singh. Balbir Singh and Kuldeep Kaur. An FIR No. Thereafter Satnam Singh accompanied by Balbir Singh during their return journey from Nabha to Patiala at about 7:00 pm on 8th January 2015. 789. Shamsher Singh encroached upon part of the land of his house on house owned by Satnam Singh No. Patiala. 1985 against Satnam Singh. and at that time he would be at Naka Duty on Patiala-Nabha Road. 1234 was recorded at Central Police Station Patiala u/s. Copy of the complaint was submitted to the court. Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh halted at Police Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road. Station House Officer of Central Police Station. Satnam Singh went to Central Police Station Patiala on 8 th January 2015 at about 10:00 am to lodge complaint against Shamsher Singh for the said encroachment of his land. on 9th January 2015 at 10:00 am. Inspector Joginder Singh marked his complaint to Sub- Inspector Hakam Singh. Green Avenue. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. Satnam Singh met Inspector Joginder Singh. Thereafter accused in the present case were falsely implicated for the offences under NDPS Act as Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh was out to favour Shamsher Singh as he was an influential person with political links. Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh told Satnam Singh that he was busy in some other matter and Satnam Singh could see him in the evening. Patiala to lodge his complaint against Shamsher Singh. to see Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh regarding Satnam Singh's complaint against Shamsher Singh. 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS Satnam Singh went on trip to Rajasthan with his family. In default of payment of fine Balbir Singh was to undergo a further term of rigorous imprisonment for one year. on 9th January 2015 by calling him at Central Police Station. 2016 During trial. 3 Kuldeep Kaur was acquitted. He did not know what was written on those papers. One lac and in default of payment of fine a further rigorous imprisonment of six months under section 18 (c) of NDPS Act. Defence also pleaded before the trial court that Deena Nath was a gambler and he remained witness in many cases at the behest of Police. Accused No. One lac Fifty thousand under sections 18 (c) read with section 31 (1) of the NDPS Act. Patiala. Harnam Singh. deposed before the court about said encroachment. 2 Balbir Singh was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of 15 years and a fine of Rs. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 8 . The trial court after considering all the material on record convicted Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh. a neighbour of Satnam Singh. 1985. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. But police got his signatures on some papers. Accused No. Sardul Singh (DW-1) deposed before the trial court that he had not witnessed any search or seizure at police Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road on 8 th January 2015. as and when required by Police. Satnam Singh was sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1985. 2016 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ISSUE I WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE? ISSUE II WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO THE PRESCRIBED LAW? ISSUE III: WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED OR NOT? Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 9 . The Lower Court has failed to notice some relevant facts and examine the prime witnesses properly. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. it is clear that the police have falsely implicated the appellants in the given case. WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED OR NOT? The counsel on behalf of the appellant humbly pleads before the court of law that the Police in the present case has falsely implicated the appellants. There has been established links between the Police and the Prosecution side. Steps taken by the police are questionable and there were procedural lapse in the search and seizure conducted by the police. which the Special Court completely failed to notice. PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE? The counsel on behalf of the appellants humbly plead before the Hon’ble High Court that the conviction order passed by the Special Court is not maintainable and requests the court to re- consider the decision passed by the Special Court. So. The independent witness couldn’t be trusted and subsequent evidences have been widely discussed in the later part of the memorial. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 10 . WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO THE PRESCRIBED LAW? The counsel on behalf of the appellants humbly pleads before the court of law about the procedure followed by the police was full of discrepancies and had many faults in it. 2016 SUMARRY OF ARGUMENTS WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT. 2016 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. 1 Raghunandan v. at least two features of this case which could provide serious grounds for suspecting the prosecution version in the Special Court1. The Special Court has passed an order of conviction against the appellant’s u/s 8(c) r/w 18 (c) of NDPS Act. The trial court was not just and was unfair with regard to examination of the relevant facts and laws. There was non- application of mind with regard to the judgment and hence it is the responsibility of the High Court to examine the evidences which are produced and was ignored by the Special Court. PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE? The appellants humbly submit that the appeal in the present case is maintainable as Hon’ble Trial Court has not considered various evidences and testimony of witness. A. State of Uttar Pradesh. There are. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT. Court was not justified in their judgement and hence the present appeal. 1974 AIR 463. 1985. The eye witnesses no doubt seem to have impressed the Special Court which had the advantage of seeing them depose. ¶ 9 Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 11 . however. The Special Court has failed to examine certain important facts of the case and also ignored many relevant evidences which were produced before the Special Court. The judgment passed by the Special Court Patiala is challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the appellant through this appeal. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. 12. before the conviction is recorded. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. Therefore. Copy of the complaint was submitted to the court2.1. Pg. the prosecution should not leave any room for 2 ¶¶ 11. “The provisions of the Act are very stringent and the minimum sentence provided is imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 4-5.000/-. After Satnam Singh (Accused No. The Special Court ignored such relevant evidences and also did not inquire further in regard to the deposition made by Harnam Singh or with regard to the complaint filed by the appellant himself. also deposed before the Special Court regarding the above said encroachment3. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. 2016. 3 ¶ 11. Station House Officer of Central Police Station with regard to the complaint against Shamsher Singh. he lodged a complaint against one Shamsher Singh at Central Police Station Patiala on 8th January 2015 at about 10:00 am for the said encroachment of the land. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 12 . Pg. b) One Harnam Singh was the neighbor of appellant. 1) returned from Rajasthan and found a wall built in his property. Satnam Singh met Inspector Joginder Singh. Moot Proposition. The Prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.00. though it does not completely prove at this instance that the appellants are innocent regarding the case but it creates certain ambiguity in both the versions and the questions their conviction order passed as it clearly shows that the Learned Special Court have failed to examine the evidences completely and have not explained the reasons for such judgment when there are various inconsistency. Moot Proposition. Therefore from the above stated facts and evidences. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. Justice Virender Singh in a case observed that. 4-5. 2016. 2016 a) The Special Court was aware of the complaint made by the appellant regarding the encroachment of the appellant’s property by his neighbor one Shamsher Singh when he was in Rajasthan with his family for a holiday. Inspector Joginder Singh marked his complaint to Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh. put to the witnesses to clear. trial or other proceeding under this Code.”5 The Section 540 read as. 2006 Indlaw PNH 609.1. If the Special Court had failed to consider their importance. the High Court should have taken further evidence on this matter under section 540 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2016 doubt at least on vital aspects and one of them is certainly that there should not be any chance of tampering with the case property at any stage. the more heavy is the burden upon the prosecution to prove the offence. The present Code provides the same interpretation u/s 311. though not summoned as a witness. p 3. trial or other proceeding under this Code. and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re. “It is a well settled principle of the criminal jurisprudence that more stringent the punishment.examine any person already examined. and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case”. or recall and re. up the position. or examine any person in attendance. When the independent witnesses PW1 and DW2 have not supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the contraband has not been satisfactorily proved. 5 Supra. though not summoned as a witness. ¶ 11 6 Ibid. the conviction of the 4 Basau Ram Alias Om Nath v State of Haryana. In a criminal case. or examine any person in attendance.C7. If the court finds that the prosecution is unable to prove the link evidence beyond doubt. at any stage of any inquiry. The Apex court observed. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 13 . I am appreciating the case in hand on that aspect on the basis of the evidence on record”4. Any Court may. or recall and re-examine any person already examined. summon any person as a witness. the fate of the proceeding cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties6. or examine person present. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. “Any Court may. “The Special Court could and should have. ¶ ¶ 9. P. summon any person as a witness. In the present case also the High Court should take further evidence under Section 311 of Cr. at any stage of any inquiry. the benefit has to be extended to the accused irrespective of the quantity of the contraband.examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.11 7 Power to summon material witness. “perusal of the prosecution evidence shows that there are certain loop holes which have not been plugged. which the accused may be carrying ought to be searched. M-17238 of 2013 (O&M) 10 50(5). proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.. seizure and arrest. The order passed by the Special Court should not stand as it does not prove the case against the accused and the High Court should look into the matter once again. 2016 appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.”9 B. Crl. seizure and arrest as per prescribed statues with reference to NDPS Act and Cr. It is clearly laid down in Section 50 (6) of NDPS Act that.C. or controlled substance or article or document. ruled in 8 Makhan Singh v State of Haryana.2 has supported the defense version and it has questioned the prosecution story.”11 Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act will come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag. in a Single Bench Judge. Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. No. held. he may. App.When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. article or container. Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the testimony of police officials. 1973 (2 of 1974).”8 Similarly. 1985. etc. There were various procedural flaws in search. 682 of 2015 9 Satpal @ Pala vs. In a similar case. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. “After a search is conducted under subsection (5). the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. No.two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. and also the Special Court have failed to inquire into the matter even after the submission of a copy of Police Complaint which the defense stated in their version. There must be some independent corroboration as far as possible. in the present case the D.W. To add to this section 50 (6) of NDPS Act has also not been complied which is very important with regard to the search. State of Haryana. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 14 . 11 Section 50(6). Cr.10 the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within a seventy. M.P. JT 2002 (3) Cri. and in addition to it. State of Haryana. (2005) 4 SCC 350. ¶ (11) 13 Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. the mandatory procedure as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not adhered to. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION.P. 2016 State of H. v.14 Here. State of Punjab.P. A. (2010) 3 SCC 746. Cr. 14 Ajmer Singh v. and the prosecution have not brought any evidence to prove it.12 In Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. The contradictions which are material in nature and go to the root of the matter falsify the prosecution story and it cannot be said that the case has been proved against the appellant15. State of Haryana. the court should understand the reason why this discrepancies needs to be answered. v. Pawan Kumar. Since the appellants have denied the fact that there was search and seizure. State of Kerala. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 15 . Pawan Kumar. This was clearly a case of search of a person. and Section 50 was rightly held applicable. In the present case the facts and evidences have not been consistent and both parties have their own version to the incident. 12 State of H. 2529 (SC). The entire recovery of the contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant is shrouded in mystery and in any case. No.13 11 gms of opium was found in a polythene bag which had been concealed in the fold of dhoti which the accused was wearing. Same view was reiterated in Ajmer Singh v. State of Kerala. 1902 of 2009. as explained above.L.J. The non compliance of provisions of section 50 would question the prosecution and there are no concrete evidences produced by them to convict the accused. The trial court failed to explain any reason for such discrepancies and passed an order. 15 Manjit Singh@Raju v. there are certain discrepancies which needs to be answered before the High Court concludes and pass an order. 16 Therefore the council would like to bring to the notice of the High Court. 2016 2.18 The court overruled an objection to production of a 16 Bahadur Singh v. A. Leathem. it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence was obtained. There was illegality with regards to the obtaining of evidences Earlier to 94th Law Commission Report. the Procedural lapse which the prosecution failed to prove. State of Madhya Pradesh. There are serious material discrepancies in the evidence in respect of recovery and seizure. the courts did not question the evidences brought in front of the court.C. WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO THE PRESCRIBED LAW. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. (2014) 6 SCC 639. There are many questions of law which needs to be answered which according to the Special Court was not relevant which was seen when it passed a conviction order without having an explanation to such questions. 197 18 ((1861) 8 Cox CC 498) Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 16 . If it is. In Kuruma vs the Queen17. 17 [1955] A.” In Regina v. Lord Goddard said: „In their Lordships‟ opinion the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. The appellant humbly submits that the search and seizure of the appellants by the prosecution was unjustifiable and was against with the provisions of the NDPS Act as well as the Criminal Procedure Code. As the counsel have already pointed out to the Special Court that the arrest itself was unlawful and there was no search taken place at the Naka. if you steal it even. “There rests no discretion with the judge to exclude evidence obtained through search which has not been conducted with the accordance of the provisions of law. 2016 letter which had been discovered in consequence of an inadmissible statement made by the accused: „It matters not how you get it. 20 Sundar Singh v.19 Supreme Court observed. However. AIR 1961 Ker. State. The Code of Criminal Procedure. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. Kau Sain v The State of Punjab. when the question arose about the admissibility of evidence which contravened these procedures.”20 B. AIR 1974 SC 329. as the Prosecution specifies. The law makers have taken proper steps by providing specific procedures and provisions to ensure speedy and fair trial. The only impact that such illegality in procuring of such evidence may be strictures against the police and can affect the weight of the evidence but the legality of the evidence remains unaffected by the defect in the search. These provisions also lay down a number of safeguards that have to be observed by the police in carrying out these searches. particularly the requirement wherein two independent witnesses are required to be present during the search. In the present case. the admission of the evidence were to be done only after proving the fact there was no unlawful means used to obtain the evidence.” After the 94th Law commission. Any delay in part of the concerned authority can question the entire investigation and when such officers cannot explain the delay in procedure the weight-age of the evidence can be questioned. it would be admissible. 8 (FB). AIR 1956 SC 411 Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 17 . 1973 lays down the procedure for the carrying out of searches by the police during the investigation of the offence. the accused were 19 Valayudhan v The State. the court adopted a legalist approach and held that such evidence would not be per se inadmissible. There was delay in lodging FIR and due procedure was not followed by the prosecution for investigation. The prosecution failed to explain such delay in lodging FIR. At this juncture. Pg. 2016.21 The FIR of the same was filed on the Morning of January 9th. State of Uttrakhand. 23 Prema Shah v. “FIR was lodged with police station after 3 hours from time of arrest. 3. C. Delay in sending samples to Forensic science laboratory with regard to standing order issued by Narcotics Bureau.” 23 In the present case also the proper procedure prescribed by the law has not been duly complied. to whom such seized contraband was forwarded u/s. State of 21 ¶ 1. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 18 . 22 ¶ 7.It was desirable that officer-in-charge of police station or officer empowered u/s. Moot Proposition. However. it deserves to be pointed out here that sample parcels were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after 18 days though as per the standing instructions of Narcotic Control Bureau Centre. 2015 near Bhakhra Nehar Bridge. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. misuse. 53 of the Act. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. when they were on their way to Patiala. substitution and constraints of proper storage space . It was observed by Uttarakhand High Court in the case observed. at 10 am22. No explanation with regard to delay in registering FIR did come forward. taking photographs and for taking all samples in presence of Magistrate under his certificate so that false implication of innocent people might be avoided. keeping in mind vulnerability to theft. 2013 Indlaw UTT 119 24 Gurmit and others v State of Haryana. should immediately approach Magistrate for certifying correctness of inventory. There is a time span of 14 hours and 30 minutes of which the officials have failed to account for the reason of such delay. 2016. and admittedly police station was within a kilometer from place of arrest. Moot Proposition. In Man Singh @ Mana v. the same should be sent within 72 hours24. Pg. 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal) 412. 2016 stopped by the officers at about 7: 30 pm on January 8th. 52 of the Act. if any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was seized. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. 1. New Delhi. 2016 Haryana. which were sent after five days”25 Thus. The samples must be dispatched to the Laboratory within 72 hours of seizure to avoid any legal objection. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. v. Fake recovery has been fabricated and nothing was recovered as no incident ever happened at Patiala Nabha Road as alleged in the investigation by the prosecution. As far as the arrest. Clause 1. 3. it was the duty of the Investigating agency to send the sample parcels to the Laboratory within 72 hours of the seizure to avoid any legal objection but in the present case. the samples were admittedly not sent within 72 hours. In the present Appeal. which creates a doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution version. The delay in sending the samples to the forensic lab also creates doubt in the entire search procedure. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 19 . the sample should be sent either by insured post or through special messenger duly authorized for the purpose. the Appellants plead that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.1988 issued by the Narcotic Control Bureau. it was made clear by the Punjab & Haryana High Court “the investigating agency has violated the standing instructions No. The dispatch of samples by registered post or ordinary mail should not be resorted to. WHETHER THE POLICE HAVE FALSELY IMPLICATED THE ACCUSED IN THIS PRESENT CASE. State of Haryana. seizure memos and other documents are concerned. CRA-D 495-DB of 2005. the prosecution has violated the instructions issued by Narcotic Control Bureau and no explanation for late sending the samples is forth coming on record.13 of these instructions postulates the mode and time limit for dispatch of sample to Laboratory. As per these instructions.3. Therefore. they are all false and forged and prepared at the Police Station.1/88 dated 15. The Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh was out to favour Shamsher Singh as 25 Man Singh @ Mana & Anr. Patiala. The special court was in the advantage of seeing the witness depose but it failed to bring out the facts. on 9th January 2015 by calling him at Central Police Station. 5. Moot Proposition. 2016 he was an influential person with political links. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. Sardul Singh (PW-2)26 (DW-1)27 deposed before the trial court that he had not witnessed any search or seizure at police Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road on 8th January 2015. Pg. In the 26 ¶ 9. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. condition precedent is that the evidence of such official witnesses must inspire confidence. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 20 . He did not know what was written on those papers. 2016. Thereafter appellants in the present case were falsely implicated for the offences under NDPS Act. When there are different versions brought by the parties in a case. Pg. In Makhan Singh vs State of Haryana30. Moot Proposition. 27 ¶ 16. Pg. “the powers of the court under s. 4. Patiala along with their vehicle and were put in the lock up. 2016. 28 ¶ 16. 30 Supra note 8. “Though it is well settled that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses. The conviction of the appellants was based on the statement made by Deena Nath and other official witnesses. In the present case. the Apex court held that. But police got his signatures on some papers. 165 of the Evidence Act to put any questions to a witness are also couched in very wide terms authorizing the judge in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts"29. and the evidence shows some inconsistencies and discrepancies. Both the accused. the Special Court failed to inquire the facts. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. 5. Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh were taken to Central Police Station. 2016. 29 Supra note 1. Moot Proposition.28 The Special Court should have asked further questions when the witness made such statement. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. The Appellants in the present case have pointed out various points which show the inconsistencies in the different versions by the party. the High Court ought not to have overlooked the testimony of independent witnesses. in our view. Deena Nath was a gambler and a stooge of police. “Sub Inspector called on phone one Deena Nath a resident of nearby village Ranbirpura. no reliance could be placed on his evidence. 32 Usman Haidarkhan Shaikh v State of Maharashtra. Independent witnesses PW1 and another independent witness examined as DW2 has spoken in one voice that the accused person was taken from his residence. He remained witness in many cases at the behest of Police. 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. 1872. in the hands of the police. Indian Evidence Act. It is therefore further contended that when the prosecution relies on the evidence of such witness who cannot be considered as an independent witness. especially when it casts doubt on the recovery and the genuineness of the prosecution version. In such circumstances. it is not as if independent witnesses were not available.” In the present case also the statements of the official witness and that of Deena Nath (P. It is very strenuously contended on behalf of the Accused that this evidence is sufficient to show that the said witness is actually a "stooge".W. 1990 (3) BomCR 181 33 Section 155 (1). Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 21 . it appears that the learned Special Judge did not consider the said infirmity as fatal to the prosecution32. 2016. and solely basing conviction on statement of such witness who is unworthy of credit 33 is not meeting 31 ¶ 3. He has in the present case made statements which support the prosecution but how much weight-age can be given to the statement of a stooge of police and a gambler. 2016 present case. 1) are one while the statement of other independent witness is different and he does not generate any confidence in the prosecution’s case.. Pg.”31 The fact that Sub Inspector had the phone number of the witness signifies that he is not an independent witness but has certain thereabouts with the Policemen for the reason undisclosed. as and when required by Police. Moot Proposition. 2. P. Law of Evidence. 161 Cr. State of Haryana38.37 In Ajmer Singh v. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 22 . He was a won over witness by the defense. In the present case. it was held that in such circumstances the “Court will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence”. 37 Om Prakash vs State of Delhi. C. Central Law Publication.The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party. and the deposition of Sardul Singh (PW2) constituted an additional factor to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. by the party who calls him :. Even if the appellate court was holding that permission to cross-examine the witness should have been given by the trial court.(1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they. p.. Principles Of Law Of Evidence. p.A. the discretion given under sec.35 It is always necessary to ascertain the trustworthiness of the witness as it being a medium through which the court is to arrive at the truth or falsity of the claim or charge in litigation. 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. 453 of 2014 38 Supra note 14. CRL. 35 Dr Avatar Singh. 4. The appellate court cannot lightly interfere with such discretion exercised by the trial court and that too without perusing the statement given by this witness u/s. 555. 1872 is a discretion vested in the trial court and. the proper thing for the appellate court to do would be to send back the 34 Impeaching credit of witness. Impeaching the credit of a witness means exposing his real character to the court so that the court may not trust him.. 1898 to the police. from their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of credit. 5344. 2016 the ends of Justice. the failure to associate any witness to confirm the prosecution story. 36 Woodroffe & Amir Ali. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. Section 15534 of Indian Evidence Act provides that the credit of a witness can be impeached. or with the consent of the Court. 161 Code Of Criminal Procedure. “Now. Vol. the Court should not simply accept the proposition that generally in such cases no member of the public comes forward to help the prosecution. this discretion was exercised after perusal of the statement given u/s.36 In the absence of clear evidence to show that a sincere effort was made. given the shoddy investigation. 19 th Ed. When the entire story could be completed and the gap between the two stories would be filled when this fact is placed as a bridge. Hence considering all the facts the High Court should acquit the appellants in the present case as the respondents were not able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. the appellant has approached this Court with a contention that he 39 Munsar Ali and Others v Union Territory of Tripura. when observed very carefully is very similar to the facts and circumstance in the case of Makhan Singh v. The entire case is being reported to the Station House officer. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. “Challenging his conviction. The fact is disclosed to the court that there existed a property dispute between Satnam Singh and his neighbour.41 It was contended in the case that. as if he was a hostile witness and had been won over by the defense”39. 2016 case to the trial court to take the evidence of the said witness further after granting the prosecution permission to cross-examine the witness. The entire case was to help Shamsher Singh and under some Political influence. the statement of the witnesses vary. There must be some independent corroboration as far as possible” The present case. Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the testimony of police officials. It was held in Satpal @ Pala v State of Haryana40. “Perusal of the prosecution evidence shows that there are certain loop holes which have not been plugged. State of Haryana. Shamsher Singh. the appellate court cannot straightway proceed to reject the entire evidence of the said witness. AIR 1964 TRI 45 40 Supra note 9 41 Supra note. There have been many cases there were certain discrepancies in the procedure of Search and Seizure. The act is incomplete without the mens rea for such implication. Without doing so. the delay in sending the sample and many other aspects which give an indication towards false implication. 8 Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 23 . He is a person with high rank in the Police Department and also has built some Political Links. Samsher Singh was an influential person and also had Political Links. 000/-. 2016 has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was brought from his house and was put behind the bars. is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. especially by discarding the testimony of both the defence witnesses. Banumathi. Fine amount of Rs. 00. The appellant is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case. Since in the cases of NDPS Act the punishment is severe. seizure and the recovery. App. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the prosecution is based solely on the testimony of official witnesses PW2 and PW6 and much weightage ought not to have been attached to their testimony. No. Appellant also alleges that non- compliance of mandatory provisions under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act vitiates the alleged recovery of contraband.”43 42 Makhan Singh v State of Haryana.”42 It was held by R. therefore strict proof is required for proving the search. 43 Ibid. Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 24 . The maximum punishment provided in the section is imprisonment of twenty years and fine of two lakh rupees and minimum sentence of imprisonment of ten years and a fine of one lakh rupee.1. if paid. the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and this material aspect has been ignored by the courts below. J. Cr. “Section 15 provides for punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. It was submitted that since both the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story. 682 of 2015. The conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him is set aside and this appeal is allowed. 2016 PRAYER In the light of the issues raised. AND/OR Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice. the Petitioner as in duty bound. 2. Equity and Good Conscience. Allow the appeal. Patiala. THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION. Set aside the conviction order passed by the Special Court. And for this. . All of which humbly submitted by Counsel on behalf of Appellants Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 25 . shall humbly pray. arguments advanced and authorities cited may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to: 1.