You are on page 1of 12

Memorandum on Behalf of the

PETITIONER

In the Hon’ble High court of

TRANCOMAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

In the Matter of

Mr. Brijesh kumar Pal …Petitioner

Versus

State of Trancomal …Respondent


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities

List of Abbreviations

Statement of Jurisdiction

Statement of Facts

Statement of Issues

Statement of Arguments

Arguments Advanced
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

Books:-

1. Criminal Law, PSA Pillai (2017)

2. CONSTITUTINAL LAW OF INDIA, Dr J. N PANDEY (2017)

Websites

1. https:// www.law.csuohio.edu

2. https:// www.aries.res.in

3. https:// www.india.kannon.org

4. https:// www.hrw.org
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

Abbreviations Expansion

AIR All India Reporter

CCI Completion Commission of India

HON’BLE Honorable

VOL Volume

HC High Court

SEC Section

CPC Civil Procedure Code

ALL Allahabad

CLJ Civil Law Journal

CRPC Criminal Procedure Code


STATEMET OF JURISDICTION

The Applicant has approached the Hon’ble High court under sec 228 A of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860.


STATEMENT OF FACT

Sec : 228 A of IPC

Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Petitioner : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Pal, IPS

Respondent : State of Trancomal

Statement of Fact

Fact :-

Mr. Brijesh Kumar Pal, IPS was the DGP (Law & Order) during the
years of 2015-16. He was believed to be officer having definite political to
“ Nationalist Democratic Party “ (NDP), former ruling party from (2006-
2016). After the new Government Ruling Party “ Revolutionary
Progressive Party” (RPP) Mr Pal was removed from the Post of DGP and
Appointes as M.D of public sector undertaking.

Later the Supreme Court Decision quashed the government


order and continued to hold his position of D.G.P until his retirement in
March 2017. During his work period, the petitioner was accused in
Monica’s case, for showing his favor to the opponent party.
Monica, actress in Malayalam film industry, which was male dominating
field. Monica formed an association of female artist called “ Celluloid
Sisters Collection (CSC) for the exploitation of the female actress. Madan
Mohan Verma was the uncrowned king of Trancomal film industry.

The issue starts when Monica was being alleged to be molested by


the driver of caravan while she was returning to home. It is alleged that
the miscreants took picture of assault and recorded on video camera.
While investigations was going on, Monica was in Dubai for a shoot on 5th
May 2017, Mr B.K Pal was invited to give lecture , while Mr Pal left the
podium and started interacting with the people. He received a call from
from Mrs. Pal and he excused the audience and took the call, while he
speaking in the call he forgot to switch off his collar mike and the
communication between them follows.

The Phone call was from Mano saying that he wants to meet the
petitioner along with his friends to discuss matters about Monica. The
petitioner responded that if something happened to her, she alone has to
be blamed and no one else. Thus some recorded this conversation and it
become viral in Social Networks. On May 25, the police initiated against
Mr Pal IPS (Petitioner) on the basis of the report regarding public
disclosure and publication of statement disclosing the identity of Victim
of Sexual harassment case. Mr Pal was charged sheet u/s 228 A of IPC
and initiated investigations.

Later the petitioner moves to Hon’ble High Court of Trancomal to


quash the FIR and end the investigation giants him. He claims that it is
violation of Articles 14, 19 & 21 and there is no offence u/s 228 A and its
violative of his rights to Privacy
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Issue 1

1. Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under section


228 A of IPC?

Issue 2

2. Whether that section 228A of IPC is unconstitutional as it violates


Articles 14, 19 & 21?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1

Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under section

228 A of IPC?

The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case is


according to sec 227 A of IPC is not contempt of court and is not
punishable under contempt of court act,1971.

Issue 2

Whether that section 228A of IPC is unconstitutional as it violates


Articles 14, 19 & 21?

One side of petition sec 228 A of IPC “Disclosure of identity of


victim” is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14, 19 & 21 of
constitutions.
ARGUMETS ADVANCED

Issue 1

Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under section

228 A of IPC?

Section 228 A of IPC

Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences etc.

Whoever prints/published the name or any matter which may be


known the identity of nay person against whom an offence is alleged or
found to be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to term 2
years and shall also be liable to fine.

The petitioner claims that by or under the order in writing of


the officer in-charge of the police station or the police officer making
investigation into such offence “ acting in good faith” for the purpose of
such investigation. Contempt of court constituting offences sec 228.
Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial
proceeding. The Petitioner says that he has been intestinally insulted by
the defendant which is punishable under IPC .

As mentioned in sub-section of sec 228 A of IPC, a police officer


while investigating can reveal the name of victims in good faith, Thus the
petitioner claims that he had not committed any offence u/s 228A of IPC.
ISSUE 2

Whether that section 228A of IPC is unconstitutional as it


violates Articles 14, 19 & 21?

Article 14

Equality before law the state shall not deny to any person
equality before law or the equal protection of the law within the territory
of India.

Article 19

Right to Freedom, protection of certain rights regarding


freedom of speech etc. All citizen has the right to freedom of speech and
expressions.

Article 21

Protection of life and personal liberty, No person shall be


deprived from his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established law. Firstly petitioner claims that sec 228 A of ICP is
unconstitutional under article 14 of constitution. Every people within the
territory of India should be treated with equal protection. The
respondent cancelled the appeal of petitioner and field charge sheet
against him as revealing name of the victim. He doesn’t get any
protection under article 14, the circumstances of a police officer will be
change , so due to some hypothetical situation , he might disclose the
name of the victim. Thus section 228 A of IPC directly violates article 14 of
the constitution.
The petitioner also claimed that sec 228 A of ICP is violate
article 19 (a) and 21 of constitution under 14 of constitution. Article 19 (a)
all citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expressions this sec 228
sec 228 A also violates freedom of speech of a person.

Thus every person hast the protection on personal liberty


within the territory of India, Its is duty of investigation as an police officer
but this section 228 A on subsection clearly explains it as action of good
faith. Finally the petitioner demanding that as a police officer he can
reveal the name of the victim for the investigation but the charge sheet
filed against him for “ Disclosure of name of victim is not an offence and
thus for public service people it is not an offence. Hence section228 A of
IPC violates Article 14, 19 & 21 of the constitution, for investigation
purpose he revealed the name of victims, his personal liberty, right to
freedom of speech is violated under this section.

Case Law

Menaka Gandi vs Union of India.

You might also like