A.K.K. NEW LAW ACADEMY Ph.D.

REASERCH CENTRE
AZAM CAMPUS, PUNE- 411001.

MOOT COURT 2020-2021

GUIDED BY

PROF. Dr. MORESHWAR KOTHAWADE.

SUBMITTED BY

Name:- SHRISHTHI .R. TIKARE

Roll.No: 102

Class:- 3rd Yr LL.B

Sub :-Practical Training Moot Court

Case name: Laxman Prasad V/S Intelligance Officer

 A.K.KNEWLAW ACADEMY
C L A S S R O O MM O O T C O U R T 2 0 2 0 - 2 0 2 1

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA

IN THE MATTER OF

LAXMANPRASAD....................................APPELLANT

VERSUS

INTELLIGANCE OFFICER....................................................................... RESPONDANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Index Of Abbreviations.........

 Index Of Authorities..........

 Statement Of Jurisdiction.............

 Statement Of Facts ...............

 Statement Of Issues...............

 Summary Of Arguments.......

 Arguments Advanced........

 Prayer For Relief..............

 TABLE OF ABREVATIONS

AI R ALL INDIA REPORT

IPC I N D I A N PE N A L CO D E
SC SUPREME C OU R T
HC HIGH C O U RT
U/S U N D E R S E CT I O N
 I N D E X O F A U T H ORI TI ES

TABLE OF CASES

 M A Q B O O L HU SSAIN V STATE OF MA HA RA SHTR A -A I R 19 32 5

53 SC
 VE N K AT A R AM A NV U N I O N OFIN DI A-AI R 19 7 9SC 49
 MOR G AN V D A VIN E (1915) 2 3 7 U S 632
 BHA G WA N S WA RU P V STATE OF MA HAR A SHTR A -A I R1 96 5 SC 68 2
 A SSI STA NT C O LLE C T O R OF CU STOMSV LR. MAL SC 96
WA NI- A IR 1 97 0 2
 STATUES REFERRED

 INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1949

 CRINIMAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

 NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE STATES CODE ( NDPS)

1985
 WEBSITES REFFERED

 HTTPS://WWW.JSTOR.ORG/STABLE/43951495

 HTTPS://WWW.LATESTLAWS.COM/ARTICLES/DRUG-TRAFFICKING-IN-INDIA-
LEGAL-PERSPECTIVE-BY-YASH-SONI/
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA, SPECIAL LEA VE PET

ITION ( CRIMINA L N O. ) 1 2 0 0 8 FILL E D U NDE R A RTICL E 1 3 6
"( THA T R E A D S A S A R T I C L E 1 3 6 C O N F E R S A R E S I D U A R Y O R E X T R
A O R D I N A R Y POWER, HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE
SUPREME COURT IN A CC OR DA N CE WI TH THE WELL -E STAB LISHE D JUDI
CIAL P RI NC IPL ES OR THE WEL L-K NOWN NORMS OF THE PROCE DURE.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On the 11 Oct. 2014, Officers of U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency along

with Officers of Narcotics Bureau, India seized 500 kgs in San Fransisco
USA. During the investigation, it was found that Laxman Prasad
(Appellant) was engaged in trafficking Hashish out of Nepal to India and
then to USA.

2. Appellant was arrested in USA by Officers of Drug Enforcement Agency

and was tried before District Court San Fransisco, USA in case no. 07 CR
660572 ,on pleading guilty of charge of conspiracy to possess with
intention to distribute controlled substances, which is an offence under
SECTION 846 of title 21, United States Code (USC) Controlled
Substances Act; the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a
totalterm of 60 months.

3. After serving out the aforesaid sentence, the appellant was deported to
India on 15thFebruary 2020 and on arrival at New Delhi he was arrested
by Officers of NCB (Narcotics Control Bureau) and taken to Mumbai and
produced before Metropolitan Magistrate and was remanded to Judicial
Custody.

4. Therefore appellant filed a Writ petition for quashing the proceedings

initiated against him for trafficking Cockain from Nepal to India on the
ground of Double Jeopardy under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India
and Section 300 of Cr.P.C. The same was dismissed by Bombay High
Court.

5. Hence against the rejection of such Plea of Double Jeopardy and Section
300 of Cr.P.C by the High Court, appellant presents appeal before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1 . WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT IN THIS COU

RT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

2 . WHETHER LAXMAN PRASAD IS GUILTY OF DRUG TRAFFICKING?

3 . WHETHER THE ARREST AND TRAIL OF ACCUSE D VIOLA TE ARTICLE 20

( 2 ) ANDSECTION 3 0 0 OF CRPC ?

4 . WHE THER LAXMAN PRASAD IS LIABLE TOA CQU IT F RO M A L L TH

E CHARGE S?
ISSUE NO 01

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROU

GHT INTHIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble

SupremeCourt of India that this special leave p
etition is notmaintainable inthis Court

under Article 136 of the Constitution Indi

of a
ag a i n s o r i n
t
a) any judgment, decree,determination,sen
tence o
rorder,

b) in any case of matter,

c) passed or made by any court or tribu

nal inthe territoryof India.
ISSUE NO 02

WHETHER LAX MANPRASAD WAS GUILTY OF DR U G TR AF F I C KI N G ?

Yes, my lor dship for drug tr afficking.

On t he 11 t h Oc t . 2 0 14 , Offic er of U.S Drug Enfor c ement Agenc y
along w i t h O f f i c e r s o f N a r c ot i c s B u r e a u , I n d i a S e i z e d 5 k g s .
C o c k a i n i n S a n Fr an s i s c o , U S A . D u r i n g t h e i n v es t i g a t i o n , i t
w as f o u n d t h a t L ax m an p r as a d ( Appellan t ) was engaged in t
raffic kin g C oc kain out of Nepal t o In dia an d t h e n t o t h e U S A . A p p e
l l an t w a s a r r e s t e d i n t h e U S A b y O f f i c e r s o f D r u g E n f o r c
e m e n t A g e n c y a n d w a s t r i e d b e f o r e D i s t r i c t C o u r t S a n Fr
ansisc o, t he US A in c ase No. 0 7 CR 6 6 0 57 2 , On Pleadin g, guilt y of t
he c h a r g e o f c o n s p i r a c y t o p o s s e s w i t h intention to
d i s t r i b u t e c on t r o l le d S u bs t an c es, wh i c h i s an of fen c e u n der
s e c t i on 8 4 6 of Ti t le 2 1 . Unit ed S t at es C ode ( US A) c on t r ol led S
u bst an c es A c t , t he appellan t w a s s e n t e n c e d t o i m p r i s o n m e n t
f o r a t o t a l t e r m o f 6 0 m o n t h s . A f t e r serving out t he aforesaid S ent
enc e,t he Appellant was depor t ed t o India on 15 t h February 2 0 2 0 .
 ISSUE NO 03

WHETHER THE ARREST AND TRAIL OF ACCUSED VIOLATE ARTICLE 20(2) AND SEC ON 300
OF CRPC ?

Yes,my lordship
As t he con v i t w a s gi ven p un is hm e nt for h i s gu i l t un de r se ct i on 8 46 of Ti
t le 21 . Un i te d S t a te C o de ( U S A ) co n tr o l l ed S u bs t a n ce s A ct .

A s La x m a n p a s a d h a s g o n e t h r o u g h t h e s e n t e n c e p a s s e d a g a i n s t
h i m b y U S di s t r i c t cou r t .

As th e r oo t s of t h e d o ctr in e of th e do u b le je o p ar d y is f ou nd in the we l l -
es t a bl i sh e d m a x i m o f t h e E n g l i s h c o m m o n l a w , N e m o de b t b i s v e x a
ri which means that aman should not be punishedtwice in peril fo
r the same offense.The trail of theappellantin Indiais barred und
er Article 20(2) of the constitution of India andalso under Sec
tion 300(1) of the code on the ground that the appellanthasal
r e a d y b e e n t r i e d a n d co n v i c t e d b y t h e co u r t o f co m p e t e n t j u r i s d i ct i o
n f o r t h e s a m e offen ce a r i s in g o ut of t he s am e f a ct s.

TheSupremeCourtin the case of Maqbool Hussain vs State of M

a h a r a s h t r a a n d th e Ve n ka t r a m a n Vs U n i o n of I n d i a h a s o b s e r
ve d t h a t a se co n d p r o se cu t i o n s b a r r e d b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f a r t i c l e 2 0 (
2)only when the accused has been prosecutedandpunishedfor th
e s a m e o f f e n c e i n a p r e v i o u s p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a c o m p e t e n t cou r t of
l a ws .

S i m i l a r l y , s e ct i o n 3 0 0 ( 1 ) of th e co de a l s o p r oh i b i t s a s e co n d t r a i
l i f t he pe r s o n ha s e i the r bee n con v i cte d o r a cq ui t te d a n d is al s o r ep r o
du ced here in be l o w –

"3 0 0 .P e r s o n o n ce c o n v i c t e d a n d a c q u i t t e d n o t b e t r i e d f o r t h e s a m
e o f f e n ce ( 1 ) A p e r s o n w h o h a s o n c e b e e n t r i e d b y a c o u r t o f c o m p e t e n
t j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r a n o f f e n c e a n d c on v i ct e d o r a cq u i t t e d o f su ch of fen
ce s h a l l ,w h i l e s u ch c o n v i ct i o n o r a cq u i t t a l r e ma i n i n f o r c e , n o t b e l
i a b l e t o b e t r i e d a g a i n f o r t h e s a m e o f f e n c e ,n o r o n t h e s a m e f a c
ts for any other offence foe which adifferent charge from the
n o n e m a de a g a in s t h im m i gh t h a ve been con v i ct ed u n der su b -se ct i on ( 2 )
t her eof ."

No ot her ingredient c ould be added and sin c e t he j u dgement oft he US Dist r ic t Cour t
establishes that the appellant had been prosecuted and punishe
d for the sameoffence,it must be held that the situation is covere
d b y t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t double j e op ar dy embodie d in Ar t i c le 2 0 ( 2 )
of t he C onst i t u t i on of In di a,even t h ou gh suc h j udgement may have been r
endered by a foreign C ourt .
As far as Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India is con
ce r n e d , t h e s a m e i s n o t c o n f i n e d t o n a t i o n a l b o r d e r s w h i c h w o u l
d have effect of restricting itsapplicability within India. Neither
A r t i c l e 2 0 ( 2 ) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f I n d i a n o r S e ct i o n 30 0 o f t h e
C o de co nf in es t he j u r is d i ct i on of th e com pe t en t C o ur t t o w i t h i n t h
e n a t i o n a l b o u n d a r i e s .Th e o n l y r e q u i r e m e n t f o r i n v o k i n g t h e p r o t
e ct i o n of t h e a f o r e s a i d p r o v i s i o n s i s t h a t t he e a r l i er t r i a l w o u l d h a
ve h a d t o b e c on d u cte d b y a C o u r t of co m pe t en t j ur i s d i ct i o n .S u ch
a con s t r a i n sh ou l d n o t b e re a d in t o A r t i c l e 2 0 ( 2 ) w h i c h w o u l d h a v e t
he effect of defeating very purpose of protectionagainst double
j e o p a r d y ,O n c e i t i s f o u n d t h a t t h e f o r e i g n c o u r t h a d v a l i d t e
rritorial jurisdiction over the cause and was legally competent
t o a w a r d a s e n t e n ce , t h e j u d g e m e n t o f t h e f o r e i g n C o u r t w o u l d
h a ve t o b e t a k e n n o t e o f a n d w o u l d h a ve t o b e d e e m e d t o h a ve
a s a t i s f i e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e ct i o n s 4 1 a n d 4 2 o f th e I n d i a
n E v i d e n c e A c t ,1 8 7 2 . T h u s t h e A p p e l l a n t s a t i s f i e s al l t he co n di
t i on s re qu i r ed f o r in vo k in g A r t icl e 20 ( 20 ) .
ISSUE NO 04

W H E TH ER LA X M A N PR A S A D I S L I A B L E TO A C QU I T FR O M A
L L TH E CHARGES?

Itis humbly submitted before the SC that the arrestand

t r a i l v i o l a t e t h e A r t i c l e 2 0 ( 2 ) a n d s e ct i o n 3 0 0 o s C r p c a
s the appellant has b e e n p r o s e cu t e d and punished i
n U S . Ye s , l a x m a n p r a s a d i s l i a b l e t o a cqu i t f r o m a l l t h e c
harges.

A cco r d in g to p a rt III A rt i cl e 20(2) of In d i an co ns t i t u t

i on re a d s a s " N o p er s on s h a l l b e p r o se cu te d a n d p un i s he d f
o r t he s am e o f f en c e m o re th an on ce ." Th e c o n c e p t o f d o u b l
e j e o p ar d y .

Thefacts on which the appellant had been tried and pr

o s e c u t e d i n t h e U S A b e in g t h e s a m e a s o n e s i n r e s p e c t
o f w h i c h h e w a s n o w be i n g t r i e d i n I n d i a ,t he co n s t i t u t i on
a l s a f e g u a r d u n d e r A r t i c le 20 ( 2 ) r ea d w i th S e ct i o n 300 of t
he C o d e w a s cl e a r l y a t tr a ct e d t o th e f a ct s o f t h e i n s t a n t c
ase and the proceedings initiated against the appellant
in I n di a ar e ,the ref ore , l i a b le t o b e q u a s h e d .
 PRA Y ER

Wherefore i n t h e l i g h t o f i s s u e s r a i s e d ,a r g u m
ents advanced andauthorities cited,the
Defence humbly submits that the Hon’ble
Court may bepleasedto–

1 .To admit the plea of Double Jeopardyunder Article20

(2) of theConstitution and Section 300 of Code of Cri
minalProcedure.

2 .To quash the proceedings initiated against the Appe

llant.

3 . To pass such o th e r orders and further orders

as maybe deemed necessary on the facts and in
the circumstancesof the case and in interest of justi
ce.

w h i c h t h i s C o u r t m a y d e e m f i t , i n t h e l i g h to f equity,
justiceand good conscience for which
the counsel may foreverpra
y.