Memorial On Behalf of APPELLANT

THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
Team Code: A-58
THE 5TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
_____________________________________________________________________________
SATNAM SINGH and ANOTHER……………………………..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB…………………………………………….RESPONDENT
________________________________________________________________________
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
______________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 1

CONTENTS
1. List of Abbreviations 3
2. List of Authorities 4
a. List of Cases 5
b. Books 5
c. Legal Database 5
d. Lexicons 5
e. Legislations 5
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 6
4. Statement of Facts 7
5. Statement of Issues 9
6. Summary of Arguments 10
7. Arguments Advanced 11
8. Prayer 25

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1)
AIR…...............................................................................
...........................All India Report
2)
Asstt….............................................................................
........................................Assistant
3)
Bom................................................................................
.....................................….Bombay
4)
Cr.L.J…............................................................................
..................Criminal Law Journal
5)
Cr.P.C.............................................................................
...............Criminal Procedure Code
6)
Cri................................................................................
............................................Criminal
7)
Govt...............................................................................
.................................…Government
8)
Kg.................................................................................
......................................…Kilogram
9)
NCT................................................................................
..........…National Capital Territory
10) NDPS….........................................................Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances
11)
No.................................................................................
.........................................…Number
12)
Ors................................................................................
...............................................Others
13)
P..................................................................................
...............................................….Page
14)
r/w................................................................................
.....................................….Read with
15)
S..................................................................................
...........................................…Section
16)
SC.................................................................................
.................................Supreme Court
17)
SCC…...............................................................................
..................Supreme Court Cases
18)
SLP…...............................................................................
..................Special Leave Petition
19)
Ss.................................................................................
........................................Sub-section
20)
u/s…...............................................................................
.................................Under Section
21)
v..................................................................................
...........................................….Versus
22) ¶…………………………………………………………………………………Paragraph
Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

Page 3
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES
1. Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746.
2. Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 6 SCC 639.
3. Basau Ram Alias Om Nath v State of Haryana, Cr. Appeal No.175-Sb of 2001.
4. Gurmit and others v State of Haryana, 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal) 412.
5. In Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2002 (3) SCR 53.
6. Kuruma vs the Queen, [1955] A.C. 197.
7. Makhan Singh v State of Haryana, Cr. App. No. 682 of 2015.
8. Man Singh @ Mana & Anr. v. State of Haryana, CRA-D 495-DB of 2005.
9. Manjit Singh@Raju v. State of Punjab, Cr. A. No. 1902 of 2009.
10. Munsar Ali and Others v Union Territory of Tripura, AIR 1964 TRI 45.
11. Om Prakash v. State of Delhi CRL.A. 453 of 2014.
12. Prema Shah v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 Indlaw UTT 119.
13. Raghunandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1974 AIR 463.
14. Regina v. Leathem, (1861) 8 Cox CC 498.
15. Satpal @ Pala vs. State of Haryana, Crl. M. No. M-17238 of 2013 (O&M).
16. State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350.
17. Sundar Singh v. State, AIR 1956 SC 411.
18. Usman Haidarkhan Shaikh v State of Maharashtra, 1990 (3) BomCR 181.

Page 4
BOOKS:
1. Sharma & Mago, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Laws, 3rd edition,
2014,
Eastern Book Company, Lucknow
2. S. C. Sarkar, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. 2, 10th Edition 2012, Lexis
Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur
3. Pillai PSA, Criminal law, 10th Edition, 2009, Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa,
Nagpur
4. Bindra NS, Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Wadhwa,
New Delhi.
5. Woodroffe and Amir Ali, Law of Evidence, 19th Edition 2012, Lexis Nexis,
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur
LEGAL DATABASE:
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
4. Hein Online
LEXICONS:
1. Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999

2. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Concise Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 2011
LEGISLATION:
1. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Page 5
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
The appellants humbly submits to the Hon’ble High Court of Patiala that it has the
jurisdiction to
try, entertain and dispose the present matter under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. The
appellant has
approached the Hon’ble High Court against the order of conviction of Special Court.
The
respondent submits that the petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents.
“The Criminal Procedure Code; Under Section 374” reads as: Appeals from
convictions:
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional

Sessions Judge or
on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more
than seven
years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same
trial, may
appeal to the High Court.

Page 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Satnam Singh went on trip to Rajasthan with his family. Taking benefit of the
absence of Satnam
Singh, Shamsher Singh encroached upon part of the land of his house on house owned
by
Satnam Singh No. 789, Green Avenue, Patiala.
Satnam Singh went to Central Police Station Patiala on 8 th January 2015 at about
10:00 am to
lodge complaint against Shamsher Singh for the said encroachment of his land.
Satnam Singh
met Inspector Joginder Singh, Station House Officer of Central Police Station,
Patiala to lodge
his complaint against Shamsher Singh. Inspector Joginder Singh marked his complaint
to Sub-
Inspector Hakam Singh. Copy of the complaint was submitted to the court. When
Satnam Singh
contacted Sub Inspector Hakam Singh at 11 am on 8th January 2015, Sub-Inspector

Hakam
Singh told Satnam Singh that he was busy in some other matter and Satnam Singh
could see him
in the evening, and at that time he would be at Naka Duty on Patiala-Nabha Road.
Thereafter Satnam Singh accompanied by Balbir Singh during their return journey
from Nabha
to Patiala at about 7:00 pm on 8th January 2015, Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh
halted at Police
Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road, to see Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh regarding Satnam

Singh's
complaint against Shamsher Singh. Both Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh were put in
the lock up.
Thereafter accused in the present case were falsely implicated for the offences
under NDPS Act
as Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh was out to favour Shamsher Singh as he was an

influential person
with political links.

An FIR No. 1234 was recorded at Central Police Station Patiala u/s. 8 (c) read with
Ss. 18 (c), 25
and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 against Satnam Singh,
Balbir Singh
and Kuldeep Kaur, on 9th January 2015 at 10:00 am.

Page 7
During trial, Harnam Singh, a neighbour of Satnam Singh, deposed before the court
about said
encroachment. Sardul Singh (DW-1) deposed before the trial court that he had not
witnessed any
search or seizure at police Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road on 8 th January 2015. But

police got his
signatures on some papers, on 9th January 2015 by calling him at Central Police
Station, Patiala.
He did not know what was written on those papers. Defence also pleaded before the
trial court
that Deena Nath was a gambler and he remained witness in many cases at the behest
of Police, as
and when required by Police.
The trial court after considering all the material on record convicted Satnam Singh
and Balbir
Singh. Satnam Singh was sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years and a fine
of Rs.
One lac and in default of payment of fine a further rigorous imprisonment of six
months under
section 18 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985. Accused No. 2 Balbir Singh was sentenced to
Rigorous
Imprisonment of 15 years and a fine of Rs. One lac Fifty thousand under sections 18
(c) read
with section 31 (1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. In default of payment of fine Balbir
Singh was to
undergo a further term of rigorous imprisonment for one year. Accused No. 3 Kuldeep
Kaur was
acquitted.

Page 8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT,
PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE?
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO
THE PRESCRIBED LAW?
ISSUE III:
WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED OR NOT?

SUMARRY OF ARGUMENTS
WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT,
PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE?
The counsel on behalf of the appellants humbly plead before the Hon’ble High Court
that the
conviction order passed by the Special Court is not maintainable and requests the
court to re-
consider the decision passed by the Special Court. The Lower Court has failed to
notice some
relevant facts and examine the prime witnesses properly.
WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO
THE PRESCRIBED LAW?
The counsel on behalf of the appellants humbly pleads before the court of law about
the
procedure followed by the police was full of discrepancies and had many faults in
it, which the
Special Court completely failed to notice. Steps taken by the police are
questionable and there
were procedural lapse in the search and seizure conducted by the police.
WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED OR NOT?
The counsel on behalf of the appellant humbly pleads before the court of law that
the Police in
the present case has falsely implicated the appellants. The independent witness
couldn’t be
trusted and subsequent evidences have been widely discussed in the later part of
the memorial.
There has been established links between the Police and the Prosecution side. So,
it is clear that
the police have falsely implicated the appellants in the given case.
Page 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL
COURT, PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE?
The appellants humbly submit that the appeal in the present case is maintainable as
Hon’ble Trial
Court has not considered various evidences and testimony of witness. Court was not
justified in
their judgement and hence the present appeal. The Special Court has passed an order
of
conviction against the appellant’s u/s 8(c) r/w 18 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The
judgment passed
by the Special Court Patiala is challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana by
the appellant through this appeal.
A. The trial court was not just and was unfair with regard to examination of
the
relevant facts and laws.
The Special Court has failed to examine certain important facts of the case and
also ignored
many relevant evidences which were produced before the Special Court. There was
non-
application of mind with regard to the judgment and hence it is the responsibility
of the High
Court to examine the evidences which are produced and was ignored by the Special
Court.
The eye witnesses no doubt seem to have impressed the Special Court which had the
advantage
of seeing them depose. There are, however, at least two features of this case which
could provide
serious grounds for suspecting the prosecution version in the Special Court1.
1
Raghunandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1974 AIR 463, ¶ 9

Page 11
a) The Special Court was aware of the complaint made by the appellant
regarding the
encroachment of the appellant’s property by his neighbor one Shamsher

Singh when he
was in Rajasthan with his family for a holiday. After Satnam Singh
(Accused No. 1)
returned from Rajasthan and found a wall built in his property, he

lodged a complaint
against one Shamsher Singh at Central Police Station Patiala on 8th

January 2015 at
about 10:00 am for the said encroachment of the land. Satnam Singh met
Inspector
Joginder Singh, Station House Officer of Central Police Station with

regard to the
complaint against Shamsher Singh. Inspector Joginder Singh marked his

complaint to
Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh. Copy of the complaint was submitted to the

court2.
b) One Harnam Singh was the neighbor of appellant; also deposed before the
Special Court
regarding the above said encroachment3. The Special Court ignored such
relevant
evidences and also did not inquire further in regard to the deposition
made by Harnam
Singh or with regard to the complaint filed by the appellant himself.
Therefore from the above stated facts and evidences, though it does not completely
prove at this
instance that the appellants are innocent regarding the case but it creates certain
ambiguity in
both the versions and the questions their conviction order passed as it clearly
shows that the
Learned Special Court have failed to examine the evidences completely and have not
explained
the reasons for such judgment when there are various inconsistency. The Prosecution
has failed
to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice Virender Singh in a case observed that, “The provisions of the Act are very
stringent and
the minimum sentence provided is imprisonment for ten years and a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
Therefore, before the conviction is recorded, the prosecution should not leave any
room for
2
¶¶ 11,12, Pg. 4-5, Moot Proposition, 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition,
2016.
3
¶ 11, Pg. 4-5, Moot Proposition, 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition,
2016.

Page 12
doubt at least on vital aspects and one of them is certainly that there should not
be any chance of
tampering with the case property at any stage. If the court finds that the
prosecution is unable to
prove the link evidence beyond doubt, the benefit has to be extended to the accused
irrespective
of the quantity of the contraband. I am appreciating the case in hand on that

aspect on the basis
of the evidence on record”4.
“The Special Court could and should have, put to the witnesses to clear, up the
position. If the
Special Court had failed to consider their importance, the High Court should have
taken further
evidence on this matter under section 540 of Criminal Procedure Code.”5 The Section
540 read
as, “Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under
this Code,
summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not
summoned as
a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court
shall summon
and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it
essential to
the just decision of the case”. The present Code provides the same interpretation
u/s 311.
In a criminal case, the fate of the proceeding cannot always be left entirely in
the hands of the
parties6. In the present case also the High Court should take further evidence
under Section 311
of Cr. P.C7. The Apex court observed, “It is a well settled principle of the
criminal jurisprudence
that more stringent the punishment, the more heavy is the burden upon the
prosecution to prove
the offence. When the independent witnesses PW1 and DW2 have not supported the
prosecution
case and the recovery of the contraband has not been satisfactorily proved, the
conviction of the
4
Basau Ram Alias Om Nath v State of Haryana, 2006 Indlaw PNH 609; p 3.
5
Supra.1, ¶ 11
6
Ibid. ¶ ¶ 9,11
7
Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at
any stage of any inquiry, trial or
other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any
person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness, or recall and re- examine any person already examined;
and the Court shall summon
and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it
to be essential to the just
decision of the case.

Page 13
appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.”8 Similarly, in the
present case
the D.W.- 2 has supported the defense version and it has questioned the prosecution
story, and
also the Special Court have failed to inquire into the matter even after the
submission of a copy
of Police Complaint which the defense stated in their version.
The order passed by the Special Court should not stand as it does not prove the
case against the
accused and the High Court should look into the matter once again.
In a similar case, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a Single Bench
Judge; held,
“perusal of the prosecution evidence shows that there are certain loop holes which
have not been
plugged. Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the testimony of police
officials. There must
be some independent corroboration as far as possible.”9
B. There were various procedural flaws in search, seizure and arrest as per
prescribed
statues with reference to NDPS Act and Cr.P.C.
To add to this section 50 (6) of NDPS Act has also not been complied which is very
important
with regard to the search, seizure and arrest. It is clearly laid down in Section
50 (6) of NDPS
Act that, “After a search is conducted under subsection (5),10 the officer shall
record the reasons
for such belief which necessitated such search and within a seventy- two hours send
a copy
thereof to his immediate official superior.”11 Compliance with Section 50 of the

NDPS Act will
come into play only in the case of personal search of the accused and not of some
baggage like a
bag, article or container, etc. which the accused may be carrying ought to be
searched, ruled in
8
Makhan Singh v State of Haryana, Cr. App. No. 682 of 2015
9
Satpal @ Pala vs. State of Haryana, Crl. M. No. M-17238 of 2013 (O&M)
10
50(5),When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe
that it is not possible to take the
person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the
possibility of the person to be
searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or
controlled substance or article or
document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, proceed to search the
person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974).
11
Section 50(6), Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Page 14
State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar.12 In Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala,13 11

gms of
opium was found in a polythene bag which had been concealed in the fold of dhoti
which the
accused was wearing. This was clearly a case of search of a person, as explained
above, and
Section 50 was rightly held applicable. Same view was reiterated in Ajmer Singh v.
State of
Haryana.14
Here, the court should understand the reason why this discrepancies needs to be
answered. In the
present case the facts and evidences have not been consistent and both parties have
their own
version to the incident. The trial court failed to explain any reason for such
discrepancies and
passed an order. The non compliance of provisions of section 50 would question the
prosecution
and there are no concrete evidences produced by them to convict the accused. Since
the
appellants have denied the fact that there was search and seizure, and the
prosecution have not
brought any evidence to prove it, and in addition to it, there are certain
discrepancies which
needs to be answered before the High Court concludes and pass an order. The entire
recovery of
the contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant is shrouded in mystery and in
any case,
the mandatory procedure as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not
adhered to. The
contradictions which are material in nature and go to the root of the matter
falsify the
prosecution story and it cannot be said that the case has been proved against the
appellant15.
12
State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350, ¶ (11)
13
Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, JT 2002 (3) Cri.L.J. 2529 (SC).
14
Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746.
15
Manjit Singh@Raju v. State of Punjab, Cr. A. No. 1902 of 2009.

Page 15
2. WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING
TO THE PRESCRIBED LAW.
The appellant humbly submits that the search and seizure of the appellants by the
prosecution
was unjustifiable and was against with the provisions of the NDPS Act as well as
the Criminal
Procedure Code.
As the counsel have already pointed out to the Special Court that the arrest itself
was unlawful
and there was no search taken place at the Naka. There are many questions of law
which needs to
be answered which according to the Special Court was not relevant which was seen
when it
passed a conviction order without having an explanation to such questions. There

are serious
material discrepancies in the evidence in respect of recovery and seizure. 16

Therefore the council
would like to bring to the notice of the High Court, the Procedural lapse which the
prosecution
failed to prove.
A. There was illegality with regards to the obtaining of evidences
Earlier to 94th Law Commission Report, the courts did not question the evidences
brought in
front of the court. In Kuruma vs the Queen17, Lord Goddard said: „In their
Lordships‟ opinion
the test to be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it

is relevant to
the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned
with how the evidence
was obtained.” In Regina v. Leathem,18 The court overruled an objection to

production of a
16
Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 6 SCC 639.
17
[1955] A.C. 197
18
((1861) 8 Cox CC 498)

Page 16
letter which had been discovered in consequence of an inadmissible statement made

by the
accused: „It matters not how you get it; if you steal it even, it would be
admissible.”
After the 94th Law commission, the admission of the evidence were to be done only
after proving
the fact there was no unlawful means used to obtain the evidence. The Code of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure for the carrying out of searches by the
police during
the investigation of the offence. These provisions also lay down a number of
safeguards that have
to be observed by the police in carrying out these searches. However, when the
question arose
about the admissibility of evidence which contravened these procedures,

particularly the
requirement wherein two independent witnesses are required to be present during the
search, the
court adopted a legalist approach and held that such evidence would not be per se
inadmissible.19
Supreme Court observed, “There rests no discretion with the judge to exclude
evidence obtained
through search which has not been conducted with the accordance of the provisions
of law. The
only impact that such illegality in procuring of such evidence may be strictures
against the
police and can affect the weight of the evidence but the legality of the evidence
remains
unaffected by the defect in the search.”20
B. There was delay in lodging FIR and due procedure was not followed by the
prosecution for investigation.
The law makers have taken proper steps by providing specific procedures and
provisions to
ensure speedy and fair trial. Any delay in part of the concerned authority can
question the entire
investigation and when such officers cannot explain the delay in procedure the
weight-age of the
evidence can be questioned. In the present case, as the Prosecution specifies, the
accused were
19
Valayudhan v The State, AIR 1961 Ker. 8 (FB); Kau Sain v The State of Punjab,
AIR 1974 SC 329;
20
Sundar Singh v. State, AIR 1956 SC 411

Page 17
stopped by the officers at about 7: 30 pm on January 8th, 2015 near Bhakhra Nehar
Bridge, when
they were on their way to Patiala.21 The FIR of the same was filed on the Morning
of January 9th,
at 10 am22. There is a time span of 14 hours and 30 minutes of which the officials
have failed to
account for the reason of such delay. It was observed by Uttarakhand High Court in
the case
observed, “FIR was lodged with police station after 3 hours from time of arrest,
and admittedly
police station was within a kilometer from place of arrest. No explanation with
regard to delay
in registering FIR did come forward. However, if any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance
was seized, keeping in mind vulnerability to theft, misuse, substitution and

constraints of proper
storage space - It was desirable that officer-in-charge of police station or

officer empowered u/s.
53 of the Act, to whom such seized contraband was forwarded u/s. 52 of the Act,
should
immediately approach Magistrate for certifying correctness of inventory, taking

photographs
and for taking all samples in presence of Magistrate under his certificate so that
false
implication of innocent people might be avoided.” 23
In the present case also the proper procedure prescribed by the law has not been
duly complied.
The prosecution failed to explain such delay in lodging FIR.
C. Delay in sending samples to Forensic science laboratory with regard to

standing
order issued by Narcotics Bureau.
At this juncture, it deserves to be pointed out here that sample parcels were sent
to Forensic
Science Laboratory after 18 days though as per the standing instructions of

Narcotic Control
Bureau Centre, the same should be sent within 72 hours24. In Man Singh @ Mana v.
State of
21
¶ 1, Pg. 1, Moot Proposition, 5th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition, 2016.
22
23
Prema Shah v. State of Uttrakhand, 2013 Indlaw UTT 119
24
Gurmit and others v State of Haryana, 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal) 412.

Page 18
Haryana, it was made clear by the Punjab & Haryana High Court “the investigating
agency has
violated the standing instructions No.1/88 dated 15.3.1988 issued by the Narcotic
Control
Bureau, New Delhi. Clause 1.13 of these instructions postulates the mode and time
limit for
dispatch of sample to Laboratory. As per these instructions, the sample should be

sent either by
insured post or through special messenger duly authorized for the purpose. The
dispatch of
samples by registered post or ordinary mail should not be resorted to. The samples
must be
dispatched to the Laboratory within 72 hours of seizure to avoid any legal

objection. Therefore,
it was the duty of the Investigating agency to send the sample parcels to the
Laboratory within
72 hours of the seizure to avoid any legal objection but in the present case, the
samples were
admittedly not sent within 72 hours, which were sent after five days”25
Thus, the prosecution has violated the instructions issued by Narcotic Control
Bureau and no
explanation for late sending the samples is forth coming on record, which creates a
doubt upon
the veracity of the prosecution version.
3. WHETHER THE POLICE HAVE FALSELY IMPLICATED THE ACCUSED IN
THIS PRESENT CASE.
In the present Appeal, the Appellants plead that they have been falsely implicated
in the present
case. As far as the arrest, seizure memos and other documents are concerned, they
are all false
and forged and prepared at the Police Station. Fake recovery has been fabricated
and nothing
was recovered as no incident ever happened at Patiala Nabha Road as alleged in the
investigation
by the prosecution. The delay in sending the samples to the forensic lab also
creates doubt in the
entire search procedure. The Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh was out to favour Shamsher
Singh as
25
Man Singh @ Mana & Anr. v. State of Haryana, CRA-D 495-DB of 2005.

Page 19
he was an influential person with political links. Both the accused, Satnam Singh
and Balbir
Singh were taken to Central Police Station, Patiala along with their vehicle and
were put in the
lock up. Thereafter appellants in the present case were falsely implicated for the
offences under
NDPS Act.
Sardul Singh (PW-2)26 (DW-1)27 deposed before the trial court that he had not
witnessed any
search or seizure at police Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road on 8th January 2015. But
police got his
signatures on some papers, on 9th January 2015 by calling him at Central Police
Station, Patiala.
He did not know what was written on those papers.28 The Special Court should have
asked
further questions when the witness made such statement.
When there are different versions brought by the parties in a case, and the
evidence shows some
inconsistencies and discrepancies, “the powers of the court under s. 165 of the
Evidence Act to
put any questions to a witness are also couched in very wide terms authorizing the
judge in order
to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts"29. In the present case,

the Special Court
failed to inquire the facts. The special court was in the advantage of seeing the
witness depose
but it failed to bring out the facts. The Appellants in the present case have
pointed out various
points which show the inconsistencies in the different versions by the party.
The conviction of the appellants was based on the statement made by Deena Nath and
other
official witnesses. In Makhan Singh vs State of Haryana30, the Apex court held
that, “Though it
is well settled that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official
witnesses,
condition precedent is that the evidence of such official witnesses must inspire
confidence. In the
26
27
28
29
Supra note 1.
30
Supra note 8.

Page 20
present case, it is not as if independent witnesses were not available. Independent

witnesses PW1
and another independent witness examined as DW2 has spoken in one voice that the
accused
person was taken from his residence. In such circumstances, in our view, the High
Court ought
not to have overlooked the testimony of independent witnesses, especially when it

casts doubt on
the recovery and the genuineness of the prosecution version.”
In the present case also the statements of the official witness and that of Deena
Nath (P.W. 1) are
one while the statement of other independent witness is different and he does not
generate any
confidence in the prosecution’s case. Deena Nath was a gambler and a stooge of
police. He
remained witness in many cases at the behest of Police, as and when required by
Police. He has
in the present case made statements which support the prosecution but how much
weight-age can
be given to the statement of a stooge of police and a gambler. “Sub Inspector

called on phone
one Deena Nath a resident of nearby village Ranbirpura..”31 The fact that Sub
Inspector had the
phone number of the witness signifies that he is not an independent witness but has
certain
thereabouts with the Policemen for the reason undisclosed.
It is very strenuously contended on behalf of the Accused that this evidence is

sufficient to show
that the said witness is actually a "stooge", in the hands of the police. It is
therefore further
contended that when the prosecution relies on the evidence of such witness who
cannot be
considered as an independent witness, no reliance could be placed on his evidence,

it appears
that the learned Special Judge did not consider the said infirmity as fatal to the
prosecution32, and
solely basing conviction on statement of such witness who is unworthy of credit 33

is not meeting
31
32
Usman Haidarkhan Shaikh v State of Maharashtra, 1990 (3) BomCR 181
33
Section 155 (1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Page 21
the ends of Justice. Section 15534 of Indian Evidence Act provides that the credit
of a witness can
be impeached. Impeaching the credit of a witness means exposing his real character
to the court
so that the court may not trust him.35 It is always necessary to ascertain the
trustworthiness of the
witness as it being a medium through which the court is to arrive at the truth or
falsity of the
claim or charge in litigation.36
In the absence of clear evidence to show that a sincere effort was made, the Court
should not
simply accept the proposition that generally in such cases no member of the public
comes
forward to help the prosecution.37 In Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana38, it was

held that in such
circumstances the “Court will have to determine whether the evidence of the police
officer was
believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence”. In the
present case,
given the shoddy investigation, the failure to associate any witness to confirm the
prosecution
story, and the deposition of Sardul Singh (PW2) constituted an additional factor to
disbelieve the
case of the prosecution.
He was a won over witness by the defense. “Now, the discretion given under sec. 154
of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a discretion vested in the trial court and, this
discretion was
exercised after perusal of the statement given u/s. 161 Code Of Criminal Procedure,
1898 to the
police. The appellate court cannot lightly interfere with such discretion exercised
by the trial
court and that too without perusing the statement given by this witness u/s. 161
Cr. P. C. Even if
the appellate court was holding that permission to cross-examine the witness should
have been
given by the trial court, the proper thing for the appellate court to do would be
to send back the
34
Impeaching credit of witness.- The credit of a witness may be impeached in the
following ways by the adverse
party, or with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him :- (1) by the
evidence of persons who testify that
they, from their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of credit;
35
Dr Avatar Singh, Principles Of Law Of Evidence, Central Law Publication, p. 555.
36
Woodroffe & Amir Ali, Law of Evidence, 19 th Ed., Vol. 4, p. 5344.
37
Om Prakash vs State of Delhi, CRL.A. 453 of 2014
38
Supra note 14.

Page 22
case to the trial court to take the evidence of the said witness further after
granting the
prosecution permission to cross-examine the witness. Without doing so, the

appellate court
cannot straightway proceed to reject the entire evidence of the said witness, as if
he was a hostile
witness and had been won over by the defense”39.
There have been many cases there were certain discrepancies in the procedure of
Search and
Seizure, the statement of the witnesses vary, the delay in sending the sample and
many other
aspects which give an indication towards false implication. The act is incomplete
without the
mens rea for such implication. The entire case is being reported to the Station
House officer. He
is a person with high rank in the Police Department and also has built some
Political Links. The
fact is disclosed to the court that there existed a property dispute between Satnam
Singh and his
neighbour, Shamsher Singh. Samsher Singh was an influential person and also had
Political
Links. When the entire story could be completed and the gap between the two stories
would be
filled when this fact is placed as a bridge. The entire case was to help Shamsher
Singh and under
some Political influence. Hence considering all the facts the High Court should
acquit the
appellants in the present case as the respondents were not able to prove the case
against the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It was held in Satpal @ Pala v State of

Haryana40,
“Perusal of the prosecution evidence shows that there are certain loop holes which
have not
been plugged. Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the testimony of police
officials. There
must be some independent corroboration as far as possible”
The present case, when observed very carefully is very similar to the facts and
circumstance in
the case of Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana.41 It was contended in the case that,
“Challenging his conviction, the appellant has approached this Court with a
contention that he
39
Munsar Ali and Others v Union Territory of Tripura, AIR 1964 TRI 45
40
Supra note 9
41
Supra note. 8

Page 23
has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was brought from his house and
was put
behind the bars. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the
prosecution is
based solely on the testimony of official witnesses PW2 and PW6 and much weightage
ought not
to have been attached to their testimony, especially by discarding the testimony of

both the
defence witnesses. It was submitted that since both the independent witnesses did
not support the
prosecution story, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
and this
material aspect has been ignored by the courts below. Appellant also alleges that
non-
compliance of mandatory provisions under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act

vitiates the
alleged recovery of contraband.”42
It was held by R. Banumathi, J. “Section 15 provides for punishment for

contravention in
relation to poppy straw. The maximum punishment provided in the section is

imprisonment of
twenty years and fine of two lakh rupees and minimum sentence of imprisonment of
ten years and
a fine of one lakh rupee. Since in the cases of NDPS Act the punishment is severe,
therefore strict
proof is required for proving the search, seizure and the recovery. The conviction
of the
appellant and the sentence imposed on him is set aside and this appeal is allowed.
Fine amount
of Rs.1, 00,000/-, if paid, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The

appellant is ordered to
be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.”43
42
Makhan Singh v State of Haryana, Cr. App. No. 682 of 2015.
43
Ibid.
Page 24
PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited may
this Hon’ble Court
be pleased to:
1. Allow the appeal.
2. Set aside the conviction order passed by the Special Court, Patiala.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience. And
for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
All of which humbly

submitted by
Counsel on behalf
of Appellants

Page 25

Memorial On Behalf of APPELLANT

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

Memorial On Behalf of APPELLANT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE 5th RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

Team Code: A-58

THE 5TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

SATNAM SINGH and ANOTHER……………………………..APPELLANTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 1

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 2

10) NDPS….........................................................Narcotic Drugs

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

1. Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746.

2. Bahadur Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 6 SCC 639.

4. Gurmit and others v State of Haryana, 2008 (4) RCR(Criminal) 412.

5. In Beckodan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2002 (3) SCR 53.

6. Kuruma vs the Queen, [1955] A.C. 197.

7. Makhan Singh v State of Haryana, Cr. App. No. 682 of 2015.

9. Manjit Singh@Raju v. State of Punjab, Cr. A. No. 1902 of 2009.

11. Om Prakash v. State of Delhi CRL.A. 453 of 2014.

12. Prema Shah v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 Indlaw UTT 119.

13. Raghunandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1974 AIR 463.

14. Regina v. Leathem, (1861) 8 Cox CC 498.

16. State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350.

17. Sundar Singh v. State, AIR 1956 SC 411.

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

Eastern Book Company, Lucknow

Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur

4. Bindra NS, Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edition, Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur

1. Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, 1999

1. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional

appeal to the High Court.

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

Satnam Singh No. 789, Green Avenue, Patiala.

contacted Sub Inspector Hakam Singh at 11 am on 8th January 2015, Sub-Inspector

Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road, to see Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh regarding Satnam

as Sub-Inspector Hakam Singh was out to favour Shamsher Singh as he was an

with political links.

and Kuldeep Kaur, on 9th January 2015 at 10:00 am.

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

search or seizure at police Naka on Patiala-Nabha Road on 8 th January 2015. But

and when required by Police.

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants

WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT,

WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO

THE PRESCRIBED LAW?

WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED OR NOT?

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants Page 9

WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL COURT,

relevant facts and examine the prime witnesses properly.

WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY POLICE WAS ACCORDING TO

THE PRESCRIBED LAW?

WHETHER THE APPELLANTS HAS BEEN FALSELY IMPLICATED OR NOT?

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AGAINST THE CONVICTION ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL

COURT, PATIALA IS MAINTAINABLE?

the appellant through this appeal.

relevant facts and laws.

Memorandum on Behalf of the Appellants