IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PINDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

MANAV SEVA SANSTHAN…………………………………………APPELLANT

VS.

STATE OF PARISTHAN………………………………….………..RESPONDENT

Special Leave Petition No. ___/2020

Filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of Pindia

_____________________________________________________________

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

_____________________________________________________________

Counsels for the respondents:

1.

2.

3.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S.No CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER

1. List of Abbreviations 3

2. Index of Authorities 4-6

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7

4. Statement of facts 8-11

5. Issues raised 12

6. Summary of pleadings 13-16

7. Written Pleadings 17-25

8. Prayer 26

2
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Cr.P.C Code of criminal procedure code, 1973

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Report

AC Appeal Cases

ALJ Allahabad Law Journal

ALJR Allahabad Law Journal Reporter

I.P.C Indian Penal Code,1860

AIR Cr All India Reporter Criminal Cases

IC Indian Cases

OR’s. Others

SUPP. Supplementary

U/S Under Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

V/S Versus

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statues

The Constitution of India

Indian Penal Code, 1860
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Cases

Gopabandhu Biswal VS Krishna Chandra Mohanty AIR 1998 4 SCC 447

Taherakhatoon v Salambin Mohammad AIR 1999 SC 1104

Pritiam Singh VS State AIR 1950 SC 169

NarendraPratapNarain Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1991 2 SCC 623

Vikaram Singh VS Union of India 1998 9 SSC 254

D.C Mills VS Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 55

HaripadaDey VS State of West Bengal AIR 1956 SC 757

TabuChetia VS State of Assam AIR 1976

Sudhier Chandra Biswas VS State AIR 1987

Ram Das VS U.P AIR 1971 SCJ 264

HiralalHarilalBhagwati VS CBI New Delhi

QyamiAyatu VS State of Madhya Pradesh

Bapu VS State of Rajasthan

4
S. Sunil Sandeep VS State of Karnataka

State of Punjab VSMohinder Singh

Books

Constitution of India ,by Jain , 7 edition

Constitution of India,by P.M Bakshi

Constitution of India,by Dr. J.N Pandey , 55 edition

Constitution of India,dr. P.K Agrwal

Constitution of India, by Mahender Pal Singh

Indian Penal Code ,by C.K Lakwani

Indian Penal Code, by K.D Gaur , 6 edition

Indian Penal Code, by B.M Gandhi, 2 edition

Indian Penal Code, by Ratanlal ,DhirajLal, 33 edition

Indian Penal Code, by Harish Chandra

Indian Evidence Act by Dr. Awtar Singh

Indian Evidence Act by BATUK LAL

Indian evidence act by Dr. V NageswaraRao.

Code of Criminal Procedure by S C Sarkar

Code of Criminal Procedure by K.V.Kelkar

Code of Criminal Procedure by Ratanlal&Dhirajlal

5
Web References

www.manupatra.com

www.scconline.com

www.indiankanoon.com

www.mciindia.org

www.livelaw.in

http://copyright.gov.in/frmrti.aspx

www.quora.com

www.blog.i.pleaders

www.lawrato.com

www.lawoctopus.com

www.scribd.com

www.shareyouressay.com

www.firstpost.com

www.lawsenate.com

www.lawteacher.com

6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The hon’bleSupreme Court of India has the jurisdiction in this matter under article 136 of The
Constitution of India as follow:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court -

1. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter the supreme court may, In its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment decree, determination,sentence or order in any Cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

2. Nothing in the clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces.

The Supreme Court has a jurisdiction to entertain and hear appeals by granting special leave
against any kind of judgment or order made by any court or tribunal in any proceedings and the
exercise of this power is left entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court.

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THERE IS A NO

INJUSTICE WITH THE BABA

Special leave petition is exercised in the cases where any substantial question of law is involved
or gross in justice has been done.

The court needs to be convicted that there is substantial question of law that needs settlement by
the SupremeCourt.

7
STATEMENT OF FACTS

ABOUT BABA

A well known person of Paristhan state was involved with multiple social and religious
organizations, having huge following among the locals politicians, bureaucrats, politicians &
others and is renowned for his command over “TantrikVidya”.

RAJPURIA FAMILY

He lived in a huge and posh complex known as “mukti ashram”. Rajpuria family was one
amongst many reputed families who seek baba’s guidance in day-to-day life. Rajpuria family
happened to be very close to baba and had blind faith on him. There was a rumour that Mrs.
HimaniRajpuria and her daughter had an illicit relationship with baba.

TOLD ABOUT EVIEL SPIRIT

On 12th February, 2005 :-

Baba summoned the entire family to his mukti ashram and took him to his special meditation
room where he unfolded that – Rajpuria family was likely to face a series of extremely
unexpected and tragic problems in coming few months due to ire of “evil spirits”.

Baba revealed that by the virtue of his “tantric vidya”, he foresaw such serioes problem. Hearing
this, the entire family was shell-shocked. Mr. Rajpuriaquestioned : “are you sure baba” and Mrs.
Rajpuria stammered & visibly shaken replied : “are you questioning baba ?”

After this baba went into Samadhi for half hour and then uttered : “I can vividly see that all of
you will be killed within a span of four months” I have to do something for a family which is
most loyal to me.

Baba went into deep meditation for the span of 5 days in his special Samadhi room and after 5
days, baba sent a message to rajpuria family to reach “Mukti Ashram” where baba declared :

8
“oh! It’s your property which is the cause of this curse” and asked whether there were any
property dispute earlier, in reply to which Mr. Rajpuria discussed about previous property and
business related issues which was settled by the decision of Hon’ble High Court.

After hearing Mr. Rajpuria, baba said : the evil spirits are engaged by someone to destroy your
entire property by killing all the members of Rajpuria family and the only way to protect the
lives is to transfer the entire movable and immovable property to some other person or
organization as per the law of the land so that the threat to the family will be over.

Hearing this, wife of Mr. Rajpuria immediately suggested : “who can be more appropriate &
better man then baba”. Her suggestion was appreciated and accepted.

Baba, hence resolved to start a ninety day long “tantric jaap” with Samadhi in isolation to
destroy the evil spirits.

The entirrajpuria family resolved to proceed for “chaardhaamyatra” to pray for the baba’s safety
and victory after the execution of deeds and documents for the transfer of property. All deeds
were executed within 7 days.

After 90 Days :-

Rajpuria family and other devotees opened the door of Samadhi room but did not found baba
there. Every corner of the ashram was searched but baba found neither dead nor alive.

Police were informed and investigation was started.

After 1 month, police received information that all the 9 members of the rajpuria family were
found assumed dead in Mr. Rajpuria’s mother home(deceased a year ago).

POLICE FOUND ALL WERE DEAD

Polce found that all were dead but Mr. HimaniRajpuria was in sub-conscious state, she was
rushed to the hospital and doctors declared that she is in comna. After 3 months of extensive
treatment, she recovered but lost all her memory.

Investigation term described the cases “very baffeling& disturbing” because there wasno marks
of injuries on the body of victins.

9
DEAD BODIES WERE FOUND

Dead bodies were found near a big dining table where the presence of used plates & utensils
appeared that 12 – 13people including the family itself had consumed dinner 2 days before the
dead bodies found on receiving information from neighbours.

Post mortem report showed traces of Belladona.

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY

It became clear that the entire property of Rajpuria family has been transferred/sold to a well-
known businessman – Mr. P.C., proprietor of P.C. Sons & co. Things were found to be as per
law after verification.

POLICE WENT TO BABA ASHARM

Police claimed to have made all the efforts to trace the baba but could not found. After this
police team raided the premises of baba’s ashram and found some material and videos which
pointed towards the suspicion of sex trade activities but no other substantial evidence in the form
of witness were available.

INVESTIGATION STARTED

December, 2005

A baba was intercepted by the police team from a small kutya in a remote and backward area of
Gassam. He was found mentally-unstable and on the basis of investigation by the police, it was
cocluded that baba was kidnapped from his ashram and taken to an isolated place.

He was kept captive for a few months and it appeared that he was tortured mentally & physically
and was made to sign documents as per the orders of his kidnappers, before being released with
blind-fold and with hands tied in a deserted place.

The baba was found in a bad condition by the inhabitants of the village who gave him shelter and
food. Baba was famous among them as “Bhola Baba”.

INTERROGATION

10
As per the statement given by the police, the baba admitted during interrogation that he had
planned the entire drama and conned the rajpuria family. He further admitted to have sold the
property to Mr. P.C., a businessman. But allegedly beforehe could receive the money, he was
abducted. However, he strongly maintained that he know nothing about the whereabouts of the
rajpuria family.

Villagers verified that the old man known as “Bhola Baba, lived a humble life & never indulged
in any unlawful activities. Rather he kept busy with puja-path throughout the day.

CHARGE SHEET FILLED

On the basis of Charge-sheet filed by the police, trial of the baba was conducted in the court of
district and session judge(Jashmer). The court acquitted baba on 16th may 2014 due to lack of
sufficient and concrete evidence and he was given benefit of doubt.

However, he was held liable for the offence of cheating u/s 416/420 of I.P.C. and was sentenced
with 3 years imprisonment

APPEAL FILLED

14th July,2014 :-

Relatives of Rajpuria family along with state/police filed an appeal against the decision of the
court in the Paristhan High court. After hearing the pleadings the Hon’ble High Court awarded
life imprisonment to baba ad held him guilty of C.H. amounting to murder on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.

NGO based in Gassam challenged the decision of Hon’ble High Court, keeping in view the good
conduct of baba and contradictory conclusions drawn by the police after investigation at the
initial stage.

11
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

1. Whether the special leave petition (SLP) is maintainable or not and whether the NGO has
the locus standi to impugn the judgment of the high court?

2. Whether the accused that is deemed insane put on trial as per the section 84 of the Indian
penal Code,1860?

3. Whether from the facts of the case the owner of pharmaceutical Company is charged with
criminal conspiracy or abatement by intentional aid?

12
STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) IS MAINTAINABLE OR

NOT AND WHETHER THE NGO HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO IMPUGN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT?

Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special leave to Appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India. It vests in the Supreme Court a discretionary
power to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional circumstances.
Such power is to be exercised with caution and in accordance with law and set legal principles.
In the instantaneous matter SLP is not maintainable as Special Leave cannot be granted when
substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special circumstances exist for case to
be maintainable. The practice of non-interference in the decisions of lower courts is followed by
the Supreme Court when it is of the view that all relevant factors have been taken into
consideration as in the instantaneous matter.

In the case D.C Mills VS Commissioner of Income Tax1 The court held in this case ”It being
an exceptional and overriding power it had to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only
in special extra ordinary situation. Beyond that it is not possible for fetter the exercise of this
power by any set formula or rule.”

In the case HaripadaDey VS State of West Bengal2 The court held that it will grant special
leave only if there has been gross miscarriage of justice or departure from legal procedure such
as which vitiates the whole trial or if the finding of fact were such as shocking to the judicial
conscience of the court.

IN THE GIVEN CASES—

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS there is no injustice with the
baba.

 The baba confesses in front of the magistrate about his overall offences

1
AIR 1977 SC 698
2
AIR 1990 SC 67

13
 He influences the Rajpuria family
 He created the overall conspiracy as per the police investigation.
 He was involved in the tantric vidhya.

14
2-WHETHER THE ACCUSED THAT IS DEEMED INSANE PUT ON TRIAL AS PER
THE SECTION 84 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

Section 84 states Act of a person of unsound mind – Nothing is an offence which is done by a
person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of min, is incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Persons of
unsound mind:-

There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be not of sound mind:-

(i) An Idiot (ii)A Lunatic or a madman (iii) One made non compos by illness
In the case Tuba chatia VS State of Assam The cout held that unsoundness of mind as
contemplated by sec 84 of the penal code is legal insanity which means the state of mind in
which an accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is doing what is
either wrong or contrary to law. In other words his congnitive faculties are such that he does
not know what he has done or what will follow his act.
In the case Sudhir Chandra Biswas VS State The court held that the unsoundness of mind
in order to be defence, means and implies a state of mind in which the accused is incapable
of knowing that he is doing any wrong or anything contrary to law and burden of proving this
is upon the person who takes the plea.
IN THE GIVEN CASES –

 At the time of offence the baba was mentally sound.

 He influences the Rajpuria family
 Baba did all the planning with full knowledge of his act and its possible outcome
 He created the conspiracy of evil spirit.

15
3-WHETHER FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE OWNER OF
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY BE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
OR ABATEMENT BY INTENTIONAL AID?

Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as below:

"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy:- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to
be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit
an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

In the case Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharastra1 the S.C held that the union of mind
of two or more persons is compulsory for the crime of criminal conspiracy. But it is not possible
to prove the agreement between such persons by a direct avidence.

In the case R. Saji VS state of Kerla the S.C held that knowing the purpose of criminal
conspiracy enough to constitute a criminal conspiracy

IN THE GIVEN CASE :---

 The owner has been with the baba in all the conspiracy from the beginning
 The baba and owner made the overall conspiracy
 With baba the owner conned the Rajpuria family
 The owner kidnapped the baba because he did not want to give baba partnership.

In the case SachinJagdish Joshi VS State of Maharastra1 the S.C held that the union of
mind of two or more persons is compulsory for the crime of criminal conspiracy. But it is not
possible to prove the agreement between such persons by a direct avidence.

In the case R. Saji VS state of Kerlathe S.C held that knowing the purpose of criminal
conspiracy enough to constitute a criminal conspiracy.

16
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1-WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP) IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT

AND WHETHER THE NGO HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO IMPUGN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT?

It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the NGO against the judgment of
Hon’ble high court is not maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is
contended that the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 can always be upheld.

1.1 When a question of law of general public importance arises and even question of fact
can also be a subject matter of judicial review.

The issues involves substantial question of law.

Art. 136:-Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court(1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in itsdiscretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree,determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
anycourt or tribunal in the territory of India

Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or underany law relating to the Armed Forces.

It has to be understood that the Court has evolved and formulated a principle that if the basic
judgment is not assailed and the challenge is only to the order passed in review, this Court is
obliged not to entertain such special leave petition. The said principle has gained the
authoritative status and has been treated as a precedential principle for more than two decades
and we are disposed to think that there is hardly any necessity not to be guided by the said
precedent.

It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court is not maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Article 136 empowers
the Supreme Court to grant in discretion Special leave to Appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal

17
in the territory of India. It is humbly submitted that SLP is not maintainable as Special Leave
cannot be granted when substantial justice has been done and no exceptional or special
circumstances exist for case to be maintainable [A]. Also, the Supreme Court should restrict
itself to interfere in the decisions of lower court. [B] Furthermore, the question involved in the
present case is outside the jurisdiction of this court, thus entitled to be dismissed [C]

A. NO EXCEPTIONAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND

SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. It is most humbly
submitted before this Honourable Court that the SC will not interfere with the concurrent finding
of the courts below unless of course the findings are perverse or vitiated by error of law or there
is gross miscarriage of justice. Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a
discretionary power to the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice
under exceptional circumstances. The SC observed in the Pritam Singh v. State , in explaining
how the discretion will be exercised generally in granting SLP: The wide discretionary power
with which this court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases
only and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special
leave in the wide range of matters which can come up before it under article 136.4
Circumspection and circumscription must induce the Court to interfere with the decision under
challenge only if the extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognised grounds are made
out.5 It is contended by the respondent that the appellant must show that exceptional and special
circumstances exists and that if there is no interference, substantial and grave injustice will result
and the case has features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed against
on merits. Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under Art. 136 . Special
leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when substantial justice is done,
though the decision suffers from some legal errors. Although the power has been held to be
plenary, limitless , adjunctive, and unassailable, in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and Aero
Traders Private Limited v. Ravinder Kumar Suri, it was held that the powers under Article
136 should be exercised with caution and in accordance with law and set legal principles.3

3
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 65; See also, Arunalchalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR
1979 SC 1284; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, VOL. 1, 252 (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing,
Allahabad 2010).

18
B. NON-INTERFERENCE IN THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS If it appears
prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any judicial standard, the ends of
justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline require the Supreme Court to intervene; the
Supreme Court in this case pointed out the errors of the High Court, but, did not interfere in the
decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court does not interfere with the conclusion arrived at
by the High Court if it has taken all the relevant factors into consideration and there has been no
misapplication of the principles of law.13 Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article
136, the Supreme Court does not interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by
the tribunal and the High Court unless there is a clear error of law or unless some important piece
of evidence has been omitted from consideration. Though Article 136 is conceived in widest
terms, the practice of the Supreme Court is not to interfere on questions of fact except in
exceptional cases when the finding is such that it shocks the conscience of the court.4

IN THE GIVEN CASE:-

There is no injustice and no violation of natural justice.

In the case of5 , In this case based on circumstantial evidence the settled law is that the
circumstantial from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive innature .MOREOVER, all the circumstances should be
complete and there should be no gap left in the chain evidence .

IN THE PRESENT CASE the court below have overlooked these settled principle and allowed
suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence.

4
Union of India v. Rajeshwari & Co., AIR 1986 SC 1748; See also, Gurbakhsh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC
320.
5
C.CHENGA REDDY &ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDRAPRADESH 1996 10 SCC 193

19
II- Whether the accused that is deemed insane put on trial as per the section 84 of the
Indian penal Code,1860?

Section 84 states Act of a person of unsound mind –

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of min, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is
either wrong or contrary to law.

In order to hold a person legally responsible for a crime, a criminal intent is necessary and
therefore capacity of the wrong-doer to form a criminal intent is a relevant consideration in
determining the criminal liability of that person. A person may lack sufficient mental capacity to
form a criminal intent because of some defect of the mental faculty.6

Stephen in his Digest of Criminal Law states – No act is a crime if the person who does it, is at
the same time when it is done prevented either by defective mental power or by any disease
affecting his mind (a) from knowing the nature and quality of the act, or (b) from knowing that
act is wrong.

Persons of unsound mind:-

There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be not of sound mind:-

An Idiot.

A Lunatic or a madman.

One made non compos by illness, and

One who is drunk.

6
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314; See also, Santosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179.

20
In R. Vs. Arnold, it was held that:- A person can claim exemption from liability if by reason of
unsoundness of mind he was unable to distinguish between good and evil and also did not know
what he did. This test is known as wild beast test.

In ShrikantAnandRaoBhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002, it was held that:- The

unsoundness of mind before and after the incident would be a relevant fact.

In Sudhir Chand Biswas Vs. State, 1987, it was held that:- If at the time of committing the
offence the accused knew the nature of the act, he is guilty. Unsoundness of mind means and
implies a state of mind in which the accused is incapable of knowing that he is doing any wrong
or anything contrary to law and the burden of proving this is upon the person who takes the
plea.7

In TabuChetia Vs. State of Assam, 1976, it was held that:- Unsoundness of mind as
contemplated by section 84 of the Penal Code is legal insanity which means the state of mind in
which an accused is incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he is incapable of knowing
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. In other words his cognitive faculties are
such that he does not know what he has done or what will follow his act.

In Kalicharan A.I.R. 1947, it has been pointed out that mere absence of motive for a crime,
however atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the
case within this section.

The plea of insanity is taken in the Bar of Trial: When the accused is insane and cannot plead.

“When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another mind that thinks and talks
as your does is close to be blessed event” – Robert M Pirsig (Philosopher & Writer)

In the given case:-

Baba was of sound mind at the time of committing the offence.

Baba did all the planning with full knowledge of his act and its possible outcome.

Baba was found insane or mentally disable, when police team traced him in Gassam.

7
British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIR 1964 SC 1451

21
Baba cannot plead the defence of insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code.

At the time of trial in the court of justice, baba was insane. Baba can be put on trial because there
is no immunity provided to any insane person.

Hence, Baba can be put on trial.

-Whether the act of Baba tantamount to cheating ?

Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code states -

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Ingredients:-

Deception of any person.

(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person –

To deliver any property to any person; or

To consent that any person shall retain property, or

(b) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

In the given case:-

Tantrik Baba influenced theRajpuria family to transfer their entire movable & immovable
property to some other person or organisation in order to avoid the series of tragic problems due
to ire of “Evil Spirits”.

22
As Rajpuria Family was very close and loyal to Tantrik Baba, they followed the instructions of
Baba and transferred their entire movable & immovable property on the name of Baba. All deeds
were executed within 7 days i.e. by 24th February,2005.

Baba instructed to not to disturb him for 90 Days during the “TantrikJaap” with Samadhi in
isolation to destroy the evil spirits and when the Rajpuria Family & other devotees opened the
door of his room, baba was not found there. Entire ashram was searched out but no traces of baba
were found.

A police complaint was filed but even after serious search out, baba couldn’t found.

In December, 2005 – Baba was intercepted by the police team from a small kutya in a remote &
backward area of Gassam in very bad condition and was mentally-unstable.

As per the statement given by the police, the baba admitted during interrogation thatb he had
planned the entire drama and conned the Rajpuria Family. He further admitted to have sold the
property to Mr. P. C., a businessman engaged in Pharmaceutical Co. But allegedly before he
could receive the money, he was abducted.

The Supreme Court has in Ram das Vs. State of U.P., 1971 analysed the ingredients of offence
of cheating as under:-

There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;

(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to a person, or to consent
that any person shall retain any property; or

(b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which
he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

Our Remarks:-

Baba made a plan to deceive the Rajpuria Family by dishonestly inducing them to transfer their
entire property to him.

23
Baba arranged the entire drama to create a sense of fear among the members of the Rajpuria
Family by creating the fictitious story of “Evil Spirits”.

Rajpuria Family was made to transfer their entire property in the name of Baba by the fraudulent
& dishonest representation of facts.

Moreover, as per the statement given by the police, the baba admitted during interrogation that
he had planned the entire drama and conned the Rajpuria Family. He further admitted to have
sold the property to Mr. P. C., a businessman engaged in Pharmaceutical Co. But allegedly
before he could receive the money, he was abducted.

24
III-Whether from the facts of the case the owner of Pharmaceutical Company be charged
with criminal conspiracy or abatement by intentional aid ?

Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy as below:

"120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy:- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to
be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit
an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or
is merely incidental to that object.

120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy -

(1) whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where
no express provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished
in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.8

IN THE GIVEN CASES:--

The pharmaceuticals company owner has kidnapped the baba as soon as he transferred all the
property to the company. The pharmaceuticals company owner also did not pay the money to
baba as he sold the property of the rich man which he conned from them. The pharmaceuticals
company owner has been with the baba in all the conspiracy from the beginning. The
pharmaceuticals company owner also torture the baba mentally and physically for months and
also made him to sign some of the documents.

8
R v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Federation Europeenne de la SanteAnimale (FEDESA),
(1991) 1 C.M.L.R. 507; See also,Julian Rivers, Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, 65(1) Cambridge Law
Journal 174, 181 (2006)

25
 PRAYER

Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,
that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Declare that the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.

2. To set aside the sentence of Hon’ble High court and give relief in the punishment of life
imprisonment to Baba keeping in view his good conduct and contradictory conclusions
deemed by the police after investigation at the initial stage.

3. To treat Baba as the person of unsound mind treated as per law and provide proper
medical aid for his ill health & frequent mental fits.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of

Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Respondent

26