App Memo PDF

5th RGNUL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 A-11
____________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA
_____________________________________________________________________________
SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER .APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB.RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4
INDEX OF AUTHORITES 5-6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9
ISSUES RAISED.. 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. 11-12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. 13-32
PRAYER....... 33

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Anr. Another
AIR All India Reporter
CPS Central Police Station
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
Cr.PC Code Of Criminal Procedure
Dept. Department
Del. Delhi
DW Defence Witness
Edn. Edition
FIR First Information Report
FSL Forensic Science Lab
FR Fundamental Rights
Guj. Gujrat
HC High Court
Honble Honorable
HP Himachal Pradesh
Jan January
M.P Madhya Pradesh
Nag. Nagpur
NDPS Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act

NOC No Objection Certificate
P. Page
P&H Punjab And Haryana
PS Post Scriptum
PW Prosecution Witness
Raj Rajasthan
R/W Read With
S Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SHO Station House Officer
UOI Union Of India
W Witness

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Cited
S.No. CASE CITATION

1. A.N. Patel v. State of Gujrat 2003 SC 2127
2. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 Cr.L.J. 2183 (P&H)
3. Dilip and another v. State of M.P. 2007 Cr.L.J. 880 (J.C)
4. Ghufo Ismailbhai Tarakwadia v. State of Gujrat 2006 Cr.L.J. 237 (Guj.)
5. Govind (1902) 4 Bom. LR 117
6. Hiralal v. State of Haryana AIR 1971 SC 356
7. k. Anbazaghan v. Supdt. Of Police AIR 2004 SC 524
8. Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka 1986 (1) crime 133(Ker)
9. Manika Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
10. Manoj Sahu v. State 2008 Cr.L.J. 3216 (Utr.)
11. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 1548
12. Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Haryana 2008 Cr.L.J. 2454
13. Mohd. Salim v. State of Haryana 2008 Cr.L.J.2987(P&H)
14. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Ramesh kumar 2013 Cr.L.J.419 (Del.)
15. Rajasthan v. Rehman AIR 1960 SC 210
16. Ramesh Chand v. State of H.P. 2007 Cr.L.J.(N.O.C)561(H.P.)
17. Ramji and others v. State of Chattishgarh 2007 Cr.L.J.(NOC)67chh
18. Sandan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2008 2 Raj. L.R.124
19. Santosh Kumar Tripathi V. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J.1782 (UP)
20. Sheikh Abdul (1916) 43 Cal 1128
21. Sitab Khan and another v. State of Rajasthan 2007 Cr.L.J.(NOC)349 (raj)
22. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994 (3) SCC 299
23. State v. Sant Prakash 1976 Cr.L.J.274(All-FB)
24. Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana 2008 Cr.L.J. 2118(P&H)
25. Taran Singh and another v. State of H.P. 2007 Cr.L.J.3111(H.P.)(D.B.)

BOOKS REFERRED
S.No. NAME
1 R V Kelkar,Criminal Procedure (6th ed. 2014)
2 Takwani, Criminal Procedure (3rd ed. 2011)
3 Sarkar, The Code Of Criminal Procedure (10th ed. 2012)
4 S.N Misra, The code of criminal Procedure (17th ed. 2010)
5 Ratam Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Code Of Criminal Procedure (17th ed.2009)
6 Sharma & Mago, NDPS Laws (3rd ed. 2014)
7 P.M Bakshi, The NDPS Act,1985 Rules(2nd ed. 2009)
8 Dr. Mehanathan, NDPS rues (3rd ed.2015)
9 D.D. Basu ,Criminal Procedure Code(4th ed.2010)
10 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,(6th ed. 2013)
11 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India (4th ed.)
12 Blacks Law Dictionary, Bryan A, Garner(8th ed.)
STATUES REFFRED
S.No. Name
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
3. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1958
4. The Indian Evidence Act,1872

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellants appear before the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and the court is
empowered to hear this case by the virtue of Section 36-B of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 36-B reads as-
The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by chapters
xxix and xxx of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1947), on a High Court, as if a
special court within the local limits of jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session
trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Section 374 reads as-
(1)
..
(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; may appeal to the High Court.
(3)
..

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That Satnam Singh along with Balbir Singh were driving back to Patiala from Nabha
where on the way they were stopped to be searched at Police Naka, near Bakhra
Nehar Bridge, on 8/1/15 at 7:30 p.m.
2. That Satnam Singh was asked to open the rear door of the vehicle numbered
PB11XZ2345, where a bag was found at the boot of the car.
3. That search was conducted in the presence of 2 independent witnesses, Sardul Singh
(PW-1) and Deena Nath(PW-2) by head constable Narotam Singh whereby two
packets of contraband were discovered.
4. That further a personal search of Balbir Singh was conducted after Satnam Singh
absconded. A packet of contraband was recovered from his pocket.
5. That a recovery memo of two packets of contraband and a search memo was prepared
and signed by Deena Nath & Sardul Singh as independent witnesses.
6. That the seized vehicle and material were taken to Central Police Station, Patiala
along with Balbir Singh in custody.
7. That the matter was reported to Inspector Joginder Singh, the Station House Officer
about the recovery of 1050, 900 & 80gms of contraband from bag & pocket
respectively.
8. That an FIR no.1234 was recorded on 9/1/15 at 10:00 a.m. u/s. 8(c) r/w Ss. 18 (c), 25
and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 against Satnam Singh, Balbir Singh and Kuldeep Kaur,
the owner of the said vehicle.
9. That an investigation revealed that Satnam Singh had returned from a family trip
from Rajasthan on 7/1/15. Also that Satnam had no settled way of life yet enjoyed
luxurious life.
10. That the FSL report stated the contrabands to be opium. Police report revealed the
prior conviction of Balbir Singh u/s. 18(c) of NDPS.
11. That during trail, (PW-1), (PW-2), Sub inspector Hakam Singh (PW-3) , Head
Constable Narotam Singh (PW-4) and Hoshiar Singh an investigating officer (PW-5)

were examined by the prosecution. Reports of FSL were tendered as evidence
confirming to be opium. Copy of the judgement of the Court regarding conviction of
(PW-2) u/s 8(c) r/w S.18(C) NDPS Act, 2005 was submitted but it was not marked.
The statement of all the accused were recorded u/s 313 of CRPC.
All the accused denied the prosecution version. Balbir Singh denied his previous
conviction.
12. That the defence pleaded to be falsely implicated and denied any search and seizure at
Police Naka on 8/1/15.
13. That Satnam Singh went CPS, Patiala to lodge a complaint on 8/1/15 at about 10:00
a.m. regarding encroachment by one Shamsher Singh. He met Inspector Joginder
Singh, SHO, who marked his complaint to Hakam Singh. Copy of the complaint was
submitted to the court.
14. That Hakam Singh asked Satnam Singh to see him at Naka in the evening on 8/1/15
where Balbir Singh arrested.
15. That Sardul Singh (Dw-1) deposed before the trial court that he had not witnessed any
such search and seizure at Naka on 8/1/15 and also that he was called at CNP, Patiala
to sigh some papers of the contents of which he was unaware of.
16. That the defence pleaded that Deena Nath (DW-2) was a gambler and a stooge of the
police and he had also remained witness in many cases.
17. That the trail court convicted Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh u/s 8(c) r/w S.18 (c) and
u/s 18 (c) r/w 31(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 respectively.
18. That the appeal is preferred by both Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh before the
Punjab & Haryana High Court.

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?
A. That the right of appeal is essential to ensure free and fair trial.
B. That the appellants are entitled to appeal by virtue of Section 36-B of NDPS
Act and 374(2) of CrPC.
C. That one right of appeal forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. WHETHER THE COURT HAS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED?
A. That the accused were falsely implicated under the NDPS Act.
B. That the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the offence against the accused
beyond reasonable doubts.
B.1 That the inconsistency in the chain of events throughout the prosecution story
creates enough room for doubts and suspicion.
B.2. That Sardul Singh (PW-2) repudiated the prosecution version and the
authenticity of Deena Nath (PW-1) as a witness is dubious.
B.3.That there is a delay in sending the samples to FSL without justification.
C. That there lies complete absence of sufficient ground for the conviction of Balbir
Singh.
C.1. That the factum of previous conviction was considered without framing
charges for it.
C.2. That the factum of previous conviction is not based on proper evidence on
record.
3. WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ALLEGED TO BE ADOPTED IN
SEARCH, SEIZURE AND ARREST STANDS THE SCRUTITY OF LAW?
A. That the safeguards of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 are not being satisfied.
B. That Section 52(3) & 52A of NDPS Act are grossly violated.
C. That various provisions of CRPC regarding search & seizure are not complied
with.
D. That various sections of Chapter V of CRPC regarding arrest are being
violated.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE?
It would be very true to say that every human being is fallible and a Judge is not an exception
.It is thus possible that a judge may err or commit mistake. It is, therefore necessary that a
person aggrieved by an order of the court of first instance may be able to challenge it by
preferring an appeal. One right of appeal is essential to satisfy the fundamental right to life
and liberty and free and fair trial. A right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right but a
statutory and substantive right. In the instant case as there is grave miscarriage of justice by
the trial court in convicting the accused. The incomplete chain of events in prosecution
version and repudiation of the independent witness hollowed the prosecution case. Moreover
the facts of the case were not rightly appreciated by the court and without the proving of case
beyond reasonable doubt the accused were convicted by the court.
Right to appeal can be invoked as provided under Section 374(2) of CrPC which is referred
to in Section 36-(B) of NDPS Act. One right of appeal forms integral part of fundamental
fairness or due procedure of law. This appeal is maintainable as all the grounds required to
file an appeal against criminal conviction are being complied with.
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED?
It is evident on the face of the prosecution version that the appellants were falsely implicated.
The prosecution completely failed to produce a single piece of relevant evidence so as to
prove the appellants liable beyond reasonable doubts. Inconsistency in the chain of events
throughout the prosecution story creates enough room for doubts and suspicion. The facts of
the case are not fairly appreciated by the trial court and in absence of any strong evidence the
appellants were held convicted. The conviction of the accused causes miscarriage of justice
and might lead to evil precedents. The repudiation of the witness and lack of evidences by
the prosecution shows that accused in the instant matter were innocent and trial court has
erred in convicting the accused.

3. WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ALLEGED TO BE ADOPTED IN SEARCH,
SEIZURE AND ARREST STANDS THE SCRUTINY OF LAW?
There is gross violation of the provisions regarding the safeguards of search, seizure and
arrest. It is in complete defiance of law. Procedure of search specifically prescribed under
NDPS Act is utterly breached. Section 50 mentioning safeguards while search along with
Section 41, 42, 52(3) & 52A, 57 are being disobeyed. Apart from that, procedure of arrest
mentioned under Chapter V of CrPC is also not complied with.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA?
It is most humbly submitted before the learned court that the appeal is maintainable by virtue
of Section 374(2) of Chapter XXIX of CRPC and by Section 36-B of NDPS Act, 1958.
A. THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE FREE AND FAIR

TRAIL.
It is humbly submitted before this court that right to appeal is a statutory and substantive
right and is essential for free and fair trial.
A right to appeal carries with it a right of rehearing of the matter in its entirety on law as well
as on facts1. Therefore, an appellate court can do anything and everything that a trial court
can do. A court of appeal is a court of error and its normal function is to correct the
decisions appealed from and its jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the trial court.2
The very fact that the decision of the lower court is duly scrutinized by a superior court
appeal or revision gives certain satisfaction to the party aggrieved by that decision. The
review of the case by superior courts, in a way, assures the aggrieved party that all reasonable
efforts have been made to reach a just decision free from plausible errors, prejudice and
mistakes.3
Free and fair trial is said to be sine qua non of Article 21 which is a fundamental right. With
regards to the protection of fundamental rights Supreme Court and High Courts is sentinel on
qui vive. The essence and object of elaborate and splendid structure of judicature lies in the
observance of free and fair trial ascertaining absence of biasness, prejudice and undue
advantage in the judicial process & decision making.
It was held by the Apex Court- Fair trial is inalienable and natural right of an individual
and denial of which was held crucifixion of human rights.
1
State of Kerala v. Sebastian, 1983 Cri LJ 416,418 (Ker).
2
C K Thakker Takwani and M C Thakker, TAKWANI Criminal Procedure , p. 273, LexisNexis, Third
Edition(2011)
3
R.V. Kelkar, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, p. 625 Eastern Book Company, Fifth Edition(2011)

SC is of the opinion that conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of criminal
offences 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.
Right to appeal against conviction being one of the fundamental asset of the citizen is crucial
in fulfilling two pronged object of satisfying the convict himself about justice being done to
him and cementing the confidence of public at large in honesty and capability of judicature.
Similar concern was manifested by SC in K. Anbazaghan v. Supdt. of Police4 , If the
criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, the judicial fairness and the criminal
justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public and the system and the
woe would be the rule of law.
The right to first appeal from the Sessions court to the High Court has been a component of
fair procedure and basic to civilized jurisprudence.
In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra5 the Apex Court said that Every step that makes
the right to appeal fruitful is held obligatory and every action or inaction which stultifies is
unfair and unconstitutional.
The concept of rule of law envisages that no person will be punished except for a breach of
law and according to the procedure established by law.
A provision as to appeal makes it doubly sure before depriving a person of his life or liberty
that his case will be fully re-examined on facts and also on law in appeal. An appeal is thus
integral part of fundamental fairness and due procedure of law.6
B. THAT THE APPEALLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO APPEAL BY VIRTUE OF

SECTION 36-B OF NDPS ACT AND 374(2) OF CRPC.
Right to appeal is not an inherent or natural right; it is a statutory right and must be governed
by the statute which grants it.7 Therefore as mentioned under Section 372, the general
principle that no appeal shall lie from any judgement or order of a criminal court except as
provided by the Court or by any other law for the time being in force.
4
AIR 2004 SC 524
5
AIR 1978 SC 1548
6
Sita Ram v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 SC 745 (754); Bolin Chetia v. Joghadish, AIR 2005 SC 1872
7
Akalu v. Ram Deo , AIR 1973 SC 2145

In the instant case, the act under which the appellants are convicted i.e. NDPS Act, 1985
explicitly mentions in Section 36-B the provision of appeal and revision. The very section
candidly makes applicable all the powers conferred by chapter XXIX and XXX on High
Courts under CrPC, 1973, as if a Special Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of
the High Court were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction
of the High Court, to the conviction and acquittal under the NDPS Act, thus, appeal before
Punjab and Haryana high court is maintainable.
Section 374, under Chapter XXIX of CRPC deals with appeals from conviction. S.374 (2)
says that; 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; may appeal to the High Court. In the instant case, trial court convicted one
of the appellant, Satnam Singh u/s. 8(c) r/w S.18 (c) of NDPS Act in which he was sentenced
with Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years and another appellant Balbir Singh was sentenced to
Rigorous Imprisonment of 15 years, u/s. 18(c) r/w S. 31(1). Therefore, grounds provided u/s.
374(2) are being complied with, hence appeal is maintainable.
Section 375 provides that where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted
on such plea, there shall be no appeal. But in the instant case, the accused have not pleaded
guilty, therefore, his right to appeal stays intact.
Section 376 provides that there no appeal by the convicted person in petty cases. But in the
instant case appellants were sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 & 15 years and
fine up to Rs. One lac fifty thousand, therefore, this case is not a petty case.
Therefore, all the ground necessary to file an appeal are complied with, hence, the appeal is
maintainable before the Honble court of Punjab & Haryana.
C. THAT ONE RIGHT OF APPEAL FORMS A PART OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
One right of appeal on facts and law is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.8 Supreme
Court has every now and then emphasized on expanding the ambit of fundamental rights. It
has even enunciated the doctrine of implied fundamental rights. The Court has asserted that
8
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531, Dilip v. Kotak Mahindra, (2007) 6SCC 528

in order to treat a right as FR, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated in the
constitution as FR.9 There is no rule that unless a right is expressly stated as FR, it cannot be
treated as one. Over time, SC has been able to imply by its interpretative process several
FR.10 Right to appeal, though not expressly mentioned as a substantive FR within part III of
constitution, was in proliferation of the ambit of FR.
It must be conceded that a right of at least one appeal except in petty cases should be
treated as an integral part to fair procedure, natural justice, basis to civilized jurisprudence
and right to life and liberty within the meaning of Article 21 of the constitution as liberally
interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India11 and in other cases.12
Iyer J., has characterized Article 21 as the procedural magna carta protective of life and
liberty.
This right has been held to be the heart of the Constitution, the most organic and progressive
provision in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws.
Thus, dismissal of the appeal would cause infringement of Article 21, a fundamental right
which is inalienable in nature. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable.
2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED?

It is most humbly submitted before the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that in the
trial before the Special Court, the appellants were convicted and sentenced under different
provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is improper and trial court has erred in the
conviction.
A. That the appellants were falsely implicated under the NDPS Act.
A complete hypothetical story was knitted by the prosecution that 1095gms and 900 gms of
opium was recovered from the car and 80gms from the bodily search.
The appellants were snared under NDPS Act for possessing drugs which is a cognizable
offence, by Sub Inspector Hakam Singh.
9
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178
10
MP Jain , INDIAN CONSTITUITONAL LAW , LexisNexis, Sixth Edition(2012)
11
AIR 1978 SC 597
12
Sita Ram v. State of U.P. , AIR 1979 SC 745 ; Babu v. State of Maharashtra , (1971) 3 SCC 544 ; Prithi Pal Singh
v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1413 ; Union of India v. Charanjit Gill, AIR 2000 SC 3425

Appellant Satnam Singh had a dispute regarding boundary wall of his house with one
Shamsher Singh, who in the absence of Satnam Singh encroached upon the part of the land
of his house by construing a wall. Satnam Singh went to the Central Police Station on 8th Jan.
2015 at about 10:00 a.m. to lodge complaint against Shamsher Singh for the said
encroachment of his land and met Inspector Joginder Singh who marked his complaint to Sub
Inspector Hakam Singh.
This defence version can be established on the basis of following evidences:
Harnam Singh (DW-2), neighbour of Satnam Singh, deposed before the court about said
encroachment.
Copy of the complaint against Shamsher Singh was submitted to the court.
The appellants were falsely implicated under NDPS Act because Sub Inspector Hakam Singh
was out to favour Shamsher Singh as he was an influential person with political links.
The stigmatization is explicit on the part of the prosecution as there in inconsistency in the
chain of events framed by them. The whole edifice of the story of search & seizure is
collapsed as the witness of the prosecution itself denied the same. The prosecution version is
entirely fake due to lack of proper evidence on record and malignant intentions are evident as
the procedure alleged to be adopted in search and seizure does not stand the scrutiny of law.
Even after the utmost efforts by the prosecution, the truth did not remain obscure. In the
landmark and recent case of Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab13 where the accused were
falsely implicated by the police, it was held that Failure to comply with the provisions of
NDPS Act would render the entire prosecution case suspect and cause prejudice to the
accused. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed and judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge against him. He is
directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
In Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana14 where appellants were falsely implicated and
various provisions of NDPS Act were breached by the respondents, SC held that Thus, the
present appeal merits grant of relief to the accused. We accordingly set aside the judgement
of the High Court as well as the Trial Court and acquit the accused of an offence under 15 of
14
2008 Cr.L.J 2118 (P&H.)

NDPS Act. We direct the accused to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other
case.
In Santosh Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P.15 where criminal appeal has been preferred by
appellant under section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, HC held that the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant deserves
to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The appeal deserves to be allowed and the
impugned judgement convicting and sentencing the appellant with rigorous imprisonment of
ten years and with fine of Rs.1 lac is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is
allowed.
The impugned judgement and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge under NDPS Act is
set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
B. THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS UTTERLY FAILED IN PROVING THE

OFFENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTS.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that the
prosecution has utterly failed in proving the offences against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubts. The trial court has failed to rightly appreciate the facts of the case.
Therefore, their conviction and sentence under NDPS Act with Rigorous punishment causes
extreme injustice to them.
It is one of the cardinal principles of criminal law that everyone is presumed to be innocent
unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial before an impartial and
competent court.16
Beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met
in any trial. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to
validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.
15
2006 Cr.L.J 1782 (U.P.)
16
Supra note (2) at 31

In Ghafo Ismailbhai Tarakwadia v. State of Gujrat17 it was held that
The standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that
of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of accused on
the prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but it is `preponderance of probability' on
the accused..If the prosecution has not been able to prove the conscious possession
of the psychotropic substance charas as that of the accused, the substratum of the case of the
prosecution would be lost and even the basic ingredients for constituting the offence under
NDPS Act could not be said as satisfiedthe impugned judgement and the order of the
learned Special Judge for recording conviction of the accused and subsequently imposition
of sentence with the fine cannot be sustained and hence, the same is quashed and set aside.
In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Ramesh Kumar18
Delhi High Court held that We are of the opinion that on the evidence of this particular
case it would not be safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant, and he must be given
the benefit of reasonable doubt.the judgement of the trial court acquitting the
respondent should be upheld and the appeal filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau was
dismissed.
In the instant case, enough reasonable doubts are created on the following basis:
B.1. That the inconsistency in the chain of events throughout the prosecution story
creates enough room for doubts and suspicion.
According to the prosecution version, on 8th Jan 2015, Satnam Singh along with Balbir Singh
was signaled to stop at a Police Naka at about 7:30 p.m. where they recovered packets of
opium.
But the fact is that Satnam Singh; the appellant himself went to Central Police station on 8th
Jan 2015 at about 10:00 a.m. to lodge a complaint. This actuality is established by the
submission on copy of the complaint to the court which is strong evidence in itself.
Moreover, Inspector Joginder Singh marked the complaint of Satnam Singh to Sub Inspector
Hakam Singh, who told Satnam to see him in the evening at Naka Duty. This very fact in
itself creates suspicion on the part of the prosecution that after the complaint was lodged why
17
2006 Cr.L.J 237 (Guj.)
18
2013 Cr.L.J 419 (Del.)

Satnam was called somewhere outside the police station. This is where the inconsistency in
the chain of events incepts. The main motive of Sub Inspector Hakam Singh was to falsely
implicate the appellants under the NDPS Act. For that purpose they were required to design
a fake story & arrange the drugs. In the fake story, it is said that appellants were signaled to
stop at Naka at 7:30 p.m. but in fact Satnam Singh himself along with Balbir Singh went to
Naka where they were taken to Central Police Station and were put in the lock up without
any search and seizure. Therefore, by calling appellants at Naka in the evening, clearly
highlights the efforts of the prosecution to obtrude a fake story of search & seizure in the
same evening and to link the same.
Section 35 of NDPS Act mentions that in any case for an offence under this act requires a
culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental
state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental
state.
Culpable mental state includes intention.
Prosecution contends that Satnam Singh slipped away from the spot and could not be found
by the police party and very next day he was arrested from his house in the evening. This
reflects inconsistency in the events so established by them because accused who has
committed such a grave cognizable and non bailable offence of possessing Narcotics would
not end up resting in his own house after absconding , rather he would sequest himself in
much more secluded area where he could stay out of the reach of the police . Moreover,
arguendo the prosecution version to be true, the very fact that appellant was arrested from
his own place emphasizes absence of any malafide intention on his part. Hence no
presumption of culpable mental state could be established.
It is also contented by the prosecution that a recovery memo of two packets of the contraband
substance was prepared which was signed by Deena Nath and Sardul Singh as independent
witnesses. Search memo was also prepared and signed witnesses and by Sub Inspector
Hakam Singh and Head Constable Narotam Singh with respect to recovery of the contraband
from the person of Balbir Singh. But none of the memos were submitted to the trial court
which points that there was no proper evidence on record.

In Karan Singh and another v. State of H.P.19 it was held that when it is not clear as to
when and whose presence search and seizure memos was prepared and witnesses have also
made contradictory statements, conviction of the accused is liable is to be set aside.
An F.I.R. No. 1234 was recorded against the appellants but it cannot be considered as proper
evidence because F.I.R. under Section 154 of CRPC is not a substantive piece of
evidence.20
Therefore, inconsistency and incompleteness in the chain of events throughout the falsely
knitted prosecution story creates doubts and suspicion and in order to prove an accused
guilty, case must be proved beyond doubts. Inspite of enough subsistence of doubts and
suspicion, trail court convicted the appellants which is a huge error.
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation is the principle that:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
B.2. That the witness (PW-2) repudiated the prosecution version and the authenticity of
(PW-1) as a witness is dubious.
The role of a witness is very important in a trial. He is an indispensable part of the justice
delivery system of any country. According to Bentham, witnesses are the eyes and ears of
justice. Hence, the accuracy and importance of any judgement relies primarily on the quality
of witnesses.21
In the instant case, prosecution deposed before the court Sardul Singh (PW-2), as
independent witness, alleging that he had witnessed the search & seizure at Naka in the
evening on 8th Jan and his sign were obtained on recovery and search memo on the spot.
But, during the trial, Sardul Singh (DW-1) deposed that he had not witnessed any search
or seizure at Police Naka on 8th Jan 2015.
19
2007 Cr.L.J. 3111 (H.P.) (D.B.)
20
Shambu Dass v. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3300
21
Rustam Singh Thakur , Evidentiary Value of Hostile Witness: Chronological Case Law Study to Address Current
Position in India, (AIR) 2012 Cri. L.J. (Jour) 13.

He completely repudiates any such search and seizure. He rather clarified before the court
that he was made to sign on some papers on the morning of 9th Jan but he did not know what
was written on those papers.
Thus the requirement of Section 100(5) of CRPC that search memo must be signed on the
spot is violated without any justification.
The denial about search & seizure by DW-1 before the court reveals to two set of realities.
1. That no search and seizure altogether was conducted at Naka.
2. That the memos supporting the prosecution claim were actually fake.
Therefore, on the basis of such repudiation of search & seizure, it can be established that the
trial court has erred the convicting the appellants and the same must be upheld for the
acquittal.
In Ramesh Chand v. State of H.P.22 it was held that the conviction of the accused on the
sole testimony of Investigating Officer can be set aside if the witness in whose presence
search was allegedly carried has denied search and seizure.
In Manoj Sahi v. State23 it was held that if the prosecution has failed to prove the conscious
possession of contraband by the accused as the evidence of prosecution has been
contradicted on materials particulars by their own witnesses, the conviction of the accused
can be set aside.
In Saudan Singh v. State of Rajasthan24 it was held that where independent witnesses to
witness search are not procure, though available, as a search was made on a busy road
leading to the bus stand and a mere formality of securing the presence of independent
witnesses is observed, conviction of the accused in a serious offences like section 50 of NDPS
Act would not be recorded. In the absence of independent witness available the testimony of
police personals would not be believed.
22
2007 Cr. L.J.( NOC) 561 (HP)
23
2008 Cr.L.J. 3216 (Utr.)
24
2002 2 Raj. L.R.124

Deena Nath (PW-1) who was presented as eyewitness of alleged search and seizure on the
evening of 8th Jan cannot be called as independent and respectable person of locality as
he was a stooge of police as well as a habitual gambler.
For any search to be legal, it is required by Section 100(4) of CRPC that before
commencement of search two or more independent and respectable inhabitant of locality
must be called upon to witness the search.
He also remained witness in many cases at the behest of police, and owing to his vice of
gambling he readily agreed to testify the police version as and when required.
Being so, a testimony by him does not hold a good evidentiary value.
As held by court in Hiralal v. State of Haryana25 in the matter of appreciation of police
evidence when a person appears as PW for four or five times in police cases, such evidence
does not carry any value and has to be rejected.
Thus, the wobbling credibility of search memo as a result of repudiation of one witness and
dubious character and clandestine nexus with the police of the other leads to the loss of
reliability on part of such evidence. Such a situation also renders ample space for doubt, and
at least the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants.
B.3. That there is delay in sending the samples to FSL without lawful justification.
In the instant case, the alleged recovery of drugs was conducted on 8th Jan 2015 and three
sealed samples from each packet were send to FSL Chandigarh on 26th January 2015. There
was a delay of 18 days in sending the samples of which no lawful justification was advanced.
The immediate sending of samples to FSL would have ruled out the possibility of tampering
the samples.
Such delay of 18days can be taken as sufficient for arranging means to support prosecution
version and thereby implicating the accused thoroughly under the NDPS Act.
In A.N. Patel v. State of Gujrat26 the Apex Court held that It has been repeatedly stressed
that NDPS cases should be tried as early as possible because in such cases normally accused
are not released on bail.
25
AIR 1971 SC 356
26
2003 SC 2127

Therefore, the deliberate delay in sending the samples on 26th Jan, 2015 and filing of Challan
by the police on 5th March, 2015 resulted in the extraordinary delay of 55 days in the
commencement of the trial. And the fact amply and ably showcases the ill intention on the
part of police officials.
In Mohd. Salim v. State of Haryana27 it was held that if the sample was send for chemical
examination after a delay of 14 days, the accused would be entitled to be acquitted for non
compliance of the procedure.
In Ramji and others v. State of Chattisgarh28 it was held that if the independent witness
does not support the prosecution story and possibility of the time of search and seizure is
doubtful, the conviction of the accused can be set aside.
In Sitab Khan and another v. State of Rjasthan29 it a held that the samples of opium
taken at the time of search and seizure and sent to FSL became doubtful and the conviction
of the accused cannot be held proper.
In Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Haryana 30 it was held that if there is delay in dispatch of
sample to FSL and the seal remained in the custody of the police, the possibility of tampering
the sample cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, delay in sending the samples create doubt, so the prosecution version is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, under the common law principle of benefit of
doubt, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.
27
2008 Cr.L.J. 2897 ( P&H.)
28
2007 Cr.L.J. (N.O.C.) 67 (Chh)
29
2007 Cr.L.J. (N.O.C.) 349 (Raj.)
30
2008 Cr.L.J. 2454 (P.&H)

C.THAT THERE LIES COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR
THE CONVICTION OF BALBIIR SINGH.
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble HC that there is complete absence of
sufficient evidence regarding previous conviction of appellant Balbir Singh. He was punished
under Section 31(1) of NDPS Act which prescribes enhanced punishment for offences after
previous conviction.
The copy of the judgement regarding the previous conviction was submitted before the trail
court but it was not marked.
Trial court had taken the factum of previous conviction without framing charges for that and
proper evidence on record.
Police Report revealed that Balbir Singh had been convicted earlier for selling opium in
2005. He was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 50000 u/s.
18(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
But he denied any such conviction.
C.1. That the factum of previous conviction is considered without framing charges for
it.
The purpose of the charge is to inform the accused as precisely and as concisely as possible
of the accusation which he has to answer, and to afford him an opportunity to defend him. 31
The primary object of framing charge is to give notice of essential facts which the
prosecution proposes to establish to bring whom charge to the accused so that he may be able
to defend and may not be prejudiced. A charge is not an accusation in abstract but a concrete
one.32
Section 228(1) of CRPC expressly provides that if the offence is exclusively triable by the
Court of Session, he shall frame a charge against the accused in writing. Section 228(2) of
CRPC further enumerates that the charge shall then be read out and explains to the accused
and he shall be asked whether he pleads or claims to be tried.
31
Srikantiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 672
32
Chitranjan Das v. State of W.B. AIR 1963 SC 1696

The framing of a charge is not a mere formality but a judicial. The object of section 288 is to
ensure that the court is satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not false and
frivolous but there is some material for proceeding against him.
In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka33 it was held that The court can take into account
previous conviction only when an additional charge was framed and proved by the
prosecution.
Under this case, the charges were not framed regarding the previous conviction; hence
Section 228 is completely violated as the provisions under Section 211 enumerating contents
of the charge are not complied with.
C.2. That the factum of previous conviction is not based on proper evidence on record.
Section 211(7) deals with enhanced punishment. This sub section says how previous
conviction is to be set out. It provides that if any person is previously convicted, is liable for
enhanced punishment and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of
affecting the punishment. But, previous conviction of Balbir Singh cannot be proved due to
lack of proper evidence on record. Regarding this, in Govind34 it was held that it is intended
to prove a previous conviction for the purpose of enhancing the punishment; it should be
entered in the charge and the accused should be called on to plead thereto; his mere
admission that he had been in jail once is insufficient to show that he pleaded guilty to a
previous conviction.
In this case, none of the grounds required by Section 211(7) as no charge was entered into
and the appellant pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the aspect of enhanced punishment can be set
aside because appellant has been sentenced under section 31(1) of NDPS Act which deals
with enhanced punishment.
Section 298 of CRPC manifests proving previous conviction or acquittal. It deals with certain
requirements which are essential with regard to previous conviction. In any trial previous
conviction may be proved by-
Section 298(a) by an extract certified under the hand of an officer having the custody of the
33
1986 (1) Crimes 133 (Ker.)
34
(1902) 4 Bom LR 117

records of the court in which such conviction or acquittal was held, to be a copy of the
sentence or order. The copy of the previous conviction was submitted to the Special Court,
but, firstly it was not marked. Secondly, it was not certified under the hand of an officer
having the custody of records of court.
Further, Section 298(b) specifically provides that in order to prove conviction; a certificate is
required, either signed by an officer in charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part
thereof undergone, or by production of the warrant of commitment under which punishment
was suffered. No such certificate was produced in the court.
All the requirements necessary u/s. 298 are necessary as evidence in such cases so as to
identify the accused person with the person so convicted.
None of the essentiality required by Section 298 is being complied with and it is being
violated heavily. In Sheikh Abdul35, in regard to this section, it was held that this section
provides a special mode in which a previous acquittal or conviction may be proved. The
previous conviction must be proved strictly and in accordance with law, and unless so
proved no Court can take them into consideration.
Moreover, Balbir Singh denied any previous conviction in which was sentenced for 5 years.
A denial by the appellant cannot be ignored, as refusal, with full confidence, before the
Special Court exhibits appellant to be honest and non guilty. Where the previous
convictions are denied, the prosecution is bound to prove that there were such convictions
and that the accused was the person convicted. 36
The prosecution utterly has failed to produce the proper evidence on record regarding
previous required to be proved with conformity of law. Consideration of the same by the trial
court in enhancing the punishment u/s.31 (1) of NDPS Act is improper. Thus, the same must
be revised.
35
(1916) 43 Cal 1128
36
S Weir 266

3. WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ALLEGED TO BE ADOPTED IN SEARCH,
SEIZURE AND ARREST STANDS THE SCRUTINY OF LAW?
It is most humbly submitted before the Honble HC of Punjab & Haryana that arguendo
prosecution version to be true; it is in complete defiance of law. The arrest, search and
seizure made under the NDPS Act as well CRPC presuppose observance of certain
mandatory norms and safeguards.
Further, compliance of such provisions has been held to be mandatory rather than mere
directory. But in the instant case there was multi pronged violation of various provisions of
NDPS & CRPC.
A. That the safeguards of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 are not being satisfied.
Section 50 provides the Condition under which the search of a person shall be conducted.
1. When any officer duly authorized under section 42 is about to search any person under the
provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take
such person without necessary delay to any gazatted officer of any of the departments
mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.
In the instant case, head constable Narotam Singh asked appellant Balbir Singh that Do you
agree to be searched here otherwise we will take you to take gazetted officer or the
Magistrate.
This was mere a plain question, expecting the reply in yes or no.
The expression in no way apprised the appellant of his right to be searched before a gazatted
officer. Moreover, the appellant passively submitted himself to the search without actually
saying anything.
Thus partial and vague conveying of the right of appellant immensely infringes clause 1 of
section 50 of NDPS which is a strong ground to set aside the conviction.
In Dilip and another v. State of M.P.37 it was held that Conviction of the accused is liable
to be set aside when no provisions of Section 50 were complied.
The failure to observe the safeguards, while conducting search and seizure, as
provided by Section 50 would render, the conviction and sentence of an accused
illegal.38
37
2007 Cr.L.J. 880 (S.C.)

In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh39 a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that The
section 50 is mandatory and it is obligatory on the part of the officer concerned to inform the
person to be searched of his right to demand that the search be conducted in the presence of
a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It was further held that non-compliance with the above
section would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial.
Section 50 states that, any officer duly authorized under Section 42 is about to search any
person under the provisions of Section 41, 42 or 43..
In the instant case, No search warrant for the arrest was issued by the magistrate, therefore
Section 41 is not invoked. Section 42 authorizes power of entry, search, seizure and arrest
without warrant or authorization. But section 42 is completely violated by the prosecution as
it expressly mentions that if any officer being superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable
has a reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and
taken down in writing .......may enter.seize.....detain....
But in this matter, there was no prior information or a reason to believe from persons
knowledge. Moreover, nothing was taken down in writing. But here the search is conducted
on the basis or mere suspicion.
Section 42(2) requires that the information taken down in writing by the officer shall within
72 hours send a copy to his immediate official superior. This is also in violation.
Section 43 of NDPS Act prescribes the power of seizure and arrest in public place.
It states that any officer of any of the dept. in Section 42 may
seize.detain.search..arrest any person in any public place or transit for an offence
punishable under this act if he has any reason to believe an offence punishable under this act
has been committed
But in the instant case there is no such explicit and evident reason to believe the commission
of an offence under this Act.
38
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 (3) SCC 299 , Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala, 1994
(6) SCC 569, Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and others v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (3) SCC 610
39
1994 (3) SCC 299

Therefore, none of the Sections which Section 50 of NDPS Act authorize an officer for
search for being satisfied. They are violated, hence the manner of search, seizure and arrest is
illegal and the conviction must be set aside.
B. That Section 52 (1) & Section 52A of NDPS Act are grossly violated.
Section 52 deals with the disposal of persons arrested and articles seized.
Clause 1 mentions that any officer arresting person under Section 41, 42 and 43 shall, as soon
as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
In the instant case, none of the above mentioned Sections were complied with which
authorizes any officer to arrest a person. Moreover, the grounds for the arrest were not
informed.
Therefore, this results in violation of Section 52 (1).
Section 52-A, deals with the disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances.
Clause 2 mentions that where any such substances has been seized and forwarded to the
officer empowered...........he shall prepare inventory of such substances containing details
relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing marks.......and make an
application to any Magistrate for the purpose of....(1) certifying the correctness of the
inventory so prepared...(2) taking photographs of such inventory and certifying it by the
Magistrate (3) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs and substances in the
presence of Magistrate and certifying it correctness.
No such step was taken by the prosecution. No inventory was prepared. There was no
involvement of the Magistrate and his certification.
There is clear cut violation of Section 52A which is mandatory as one of the most important
aspect of the procedure of search & seizure.
Clause 4 of Section 52-A mentions that every court trying an offence under this Act, shall
treat the inventory, photographs, samples are certification by the Magistrate, as primary
evidence in respect of such an offence.
But the provision of primary evidence is nullified as no such procedure was followed.
Most of the provisions of the procedure established by law are majorly voilaled which are
substantial in nature. Therefore, non compliance of these aspects embraces the fact that the
alleged procedure of search and seizure does not stand the scrutiny of law.

C. That various provisions of CRPC regarding search and seizure are not being
complied with.
The appellants are falsely implicated under the NDPS Act by the prosecution.
Even if the implicated version is assumed to be true, the procedure alleged does not stand the
scrutiny of law. Procedure of search, seizure and arrest established by the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 are being violated enormously.
Section 51 of NDPS Act itself provides that the provisions of the Cod of Criminal Procedure,
1973 shall apply; in so far they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all
warrants issued, arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act.
With regard to the search, Section 165 of CRPC expressly mentions that when an officer in
charge of a police station.................has reasonable grounds for believing that anything
necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any ........such an officer may, after
recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in writing the thing for which
the search is to be made.....
In the instant case, no such grounds for belief or the cause of search were written.
State of Rajasthan v. Rehman40 it was held that "the recording of reasons in an important
step in the manner of search and to ignore it is to ignore the material part of the provision
govering searches. If that can be ignored, it cannot be said that the search is carried out in
accordance with the provisions of the Code, it would be a search made in contravention of
the provisions of the Code."
Section 165(4) provides that provision as to searches provided in Section 100 shall apply to
search made under this section. Section 100(4) expressly requires the presence of two or
more independent and respectable witnesses at the time of search. In the instant case, denial
of witnessing the search by one of the witness and the dubious character of the other, as he
was a gambler, infringes the requirement of this section. Hence, it is completely violated.
Section 165(5) further provides that the copies of the record shall be sent to the nearest
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence....
No such procedure was followed by the prosecution. It clearly defies this section.
40
AIR 1960 SC 210

In State v. Sant Prakash 41 it was held that "the search conducted in the contravention of
this provision would be illegal."
Therefore, the procedure adopted in search does not only violate the provisions of NDPS Act,
but also the provisions under CRPC. Hence, the procedure does not stand the scrutiny of the
law and the conviction by the trial court is improper as there is huge ignorance of law.
D. That various sections of Chapter V of CRPC regarding arrest are being violated?
Chapter V of CRPC encompasses the provisions of arrests of persons. In the instant case,
since the initial stage, the provisions are being violated, which creates huge miscarriage of
justice. Section 41B, 50, 54, 56, 57 & 60-A are being infringed.
Apart from that, the appellants were put in the lock for no offence. The appellants were
detained in the custody for 55 days before the case went to the trial court, without justifying
any ground for such custody. S. 151(2) of CRPC states that no person arrested under who
has committed cognizable offence shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-
four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorized
under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force. The
grounds of their arrest or detention were not conveyed to them which breach their FR under
Article 21 & 22(2).
41
1976 CrLJ 274 (ALL- FB)

PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of aforesaid facts, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited
it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to-
A- Admit the appeal.
B- Reconsider the facts of the case and closely scrutinize the grounds of conviction.
C- Set aside the conviction of the Appellants.
AND/OR
grant such other relief as the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANTS SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY.
(COUNSELS IN BEHALF OF APPELLANTS)

App Memo PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

App Memo PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5th RGNUL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 A-11

BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

SATNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER .APPELLANT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3-4

INDEX OF AUTHORITES 5-6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 8-9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. 11-12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED. 13-32

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 2

AIR All India Reporter

CPS Central Police Station

Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal

Cr.PC Code Of Criminal Procedure

FIR First Information Report

FSL Forensic Science Lab

M.P Madhya Pradesh

NDPS Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 3

P&H Punjab And Haryana

R/W Read With

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SHO Station House Officer

UOI Union Of India

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 4

S.No. CASE CITATION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 5

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 6

Section 36-B reads as-

Section 374 reads as-

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 7

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 8

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 9

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 10

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS

2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 11

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 12

A. THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS ESSENTIAL TO ENSURE FREE AND FAIR

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 13

B. THAT THE APPEALLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO APPEAL BY VIRTUE OF

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 14

C. THAT ONE RIGHT OF APPEAL FORMS A PART OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 15

2. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 17

B. THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS UTTERLY FAILED IN PROVING THE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 18

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 19

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 20

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 21

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 22

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 23

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 24

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 25

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 26

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 27

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS Page 28