Name:- Rawade Pooja Rajaram

Roll.No. 132

Class:- 3rd Yr L.L.B

Sub :-Practical Training Moot Court

Case name: L A X M A N P R A S A D V ERSUS I N T E L L I G A N C E O F F I C E R

 A.K.K NEWLAW ACADEMY
CLASSROOM MOOT COURT 2020-2021

B E FO R E T HE H ON O U R A B L E S U P R E M E
C O U R T O F I N D IA

UNDER AR TI CL E 1 3 6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF I N D I V A

I N THE M AT T ER OF

L A X M A N P R A S A D..............................................................A P P E L L A N T

V ERSUS

INT ELLIGANCE O F F I C E R....................................................................... RESPOND ANT

 TABLE O F 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

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
SC SU PRE M E COURT
HC HIG H COURT
U/S UNDER SECTION
 INDEX O F A UTHORI TIES

TABLE OF C A S E S

• MAQBOOL H U SSAIN V ST AT E OF M A H A RA SH T R A -A I R 1953 SC 325

• VE NKATARAMAN V UNION OF IN DI A-AI R 1 9 7 9 SC49
• M O R G A N V DAVINE (1915) 2 3 7 U S 632
• BHAGWAN SWARUP V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-AIR 1965 SC 682
• A S SI S T A N T COLLECTOR O F C U S T O M S V LR.MALWANI- AIR1970 SC 962
 STA T U ES REFERRED

• I N D IA N P E N A L C O D E , 1 8 6 0

• T H E C O N S T I T U T I ON O F I N D I A , 1 9 4 9

• C R IN I M A L P R O C E D U R E C O D E , 1 9 7 3 .

• N AR C OTIC D R U G S A N D P S Y C H O T R O P I C S U B S T A N C E S T A T E S C O D E ( N D P S)
1985
 W E B S I T E S RE FFERED

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

• H T T P S : / / W W W . L A T E S T L A W S . C O M / A R T I C L E S / D R U G- TR A F F I C K I N G - I N - IN D I A -
L EGA L-P ER S PEC T IV E -B Y - Y A S H - S O N I /
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

IN THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA, SPECIAL LEAVE PET

ITION (CRIMINAL NO.)1 2 0 0 8 FILLED UNDER ARTICLE 13 6 "(THAT
READ SASARTICLE 136 CONFERS A RESIDUARY OR EXTRAORDINARY
POWER, HOWEVER, IT SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELL-ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES OR THE
W E L L- K N O W N N O R M S O F T H E P R O C E D U R E .
 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 N OT?

2 .WHETHER LAXMAN PRASAD IS GUILTY OF DRUG TRAFF ICK I NG?

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

(2) ANDSECTION 3 0 0 OF CRPC ?

4 .WHETHER LAXMAN PRASAD IS LIABLE TOACQU IT F ROM ALL THE

CHARGE S?
ISSUE NO 01

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT IN

THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR N OT?

It is m ost hum bly submit te d be for e this H o n'ble S up rem e

Court of India that this special leave petition is not
maintainable in this Court

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

ag a i n s t o r i n
a) a ny j ud g m e nt , d e cr e e ,d e t e r m i nat io n ,s e nt e nc e or
order,

b) in any case of matter,

c) passed or made by any court or tribunal in

the territory of India.
ISSUE NO 02

WHETHER LAX MANPRASAD WAS GUILTY OF DRUGTRAFFICKING?

Yes , m y l or dshi p for dru g tr affi ckin g.

O n t h e 1 1 t h O c t . 2 0 1 4 , O f f i c e r o f U .S D r u g E n f o r c e m e n t A g e n c y a l o n g
wit h Offic ers of Nar c ot ic s Bureau ,In dia S eized 5 kgs.C oc kain in S an
Fr ansisc o,U S A.Dur in g t he in ves t i gat ion,it was f oun d t h at L axman pr as ad
( Appellan t ) was engaged in t raffic kin g C oc kain out of Nepal t o In dia an
d t hen t o t he US A.Appellant was arrest e d in t he US A by Offi c ers of
Drug Enforc ement Agenc y and wast ried before Dist ric t Court S an
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 harge of c onspirac y t o posses wit h int ent ion to dist ribut e
c ont rolled S ubst anc es,whic h is an offen c e under sec t ion8 4 6 of Tit le
2 1. Unit ed S t at es C ode ( US A) c on t r olled S u bst an c es A c t , t he appellan t
wassent en c ed t o imprisonment for a t ot al t erm of 6 0 m ont hs. Aft er
ser vin g ou t t he af or esaid S en t en c e ,t h e A p pell an t w as de p or t e d t o I n di a
on 15t h February2 0 2 0 .
 ISSUE NO 03

W H E T H E R T H E AR R E S T A N D TR A I L O F A CC U S E D V I O L A T E A R T I C LE 20( 2) A N D S E C O N 3 00
OF CRPC ?

Ye s ,m y l or ds h i p
As the convit was given punishment for his guilt under section846 of Title 21.
United S tate Code (US A) controlled Substances Act.

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
district court.

As the roots of the doctrine of the double jeopardy is found in the well-establishe
d m axim of the E nglis h comm on law,Nemodebt bis vexari wh ich means th at a
m an shou ld no t be punishe dt wi ce in pe ril f or the s a m e of f e nse .The tr ail of the
appellant in India is barred under Article 20(2) of the constitution of India and
also under Section 30 0 (1) of the code on the ground that the appellant has
already been tried and convicted by the court of competent j urisdiction for the same
offence arising out of the same facts.

The Supreme Court in the case of Maqbool Hussain vs State of Maharashtra and
the Venkatraman Vs Union of India has observed that a se cond prosecutions
barred by application ofarticle20 (2)only when the accused has been prosecuted
and punishedfor the same offence in a previous proceeding before a competent
court of laws.

Similarly, se ction 300(1) of the code also prohibits a se cond trail if the person
has either been convicted or acquitted and is also reproduced herein below–

"3 0 0 . P e r s o n o n c e 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 c e ( 1 ) A
person who has once been trie d by a cour t ofcompetent jurisdiction for an offence
a n d c on v i c t e d o r a c q u i t t e d o f su c h of f e n c e s h a l l ,w h i l e s u ch c o n v i c t i o n o r a c q u i t t a l
r e m a 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
same facts for any other offence foe which adifferent charge from the none
m a d e a g a i n s t h i m m i g h t h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d u n d e r s u b - s e c t i o n ( 2 ) t h e r e o f ."

No ot h er in gr e dien t c ou ld be ad ded an d sin c e t he j u dge men t o ft h e U S Dis t ri c t C our t

est ablishes t hat t he appellant had been prosec ut ed and punished for t he same
offenc e, it must be held t hat t he sit uat ion is c overed by t he prohibit ion against
d o u b l e j e o p a r d y e m b o d i e d i n 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 ,e v e n t h o u g h
su c h j u d gem en t m ay h ave been r en der ed by a f or ei gn C ou r t .
As fa r a s Ar t i cl e 2 0 ( 2) of the C ons t i tu ti on of In di a i s con ce rne d,the s am e
is not confined to national borders which would have effect of restricting its
applicability within India. Neither Article20 (2)of the Constitution of Indian or
S e c t i o n 30 0 o f t h e C o d e c o n f i n e s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o m p e t e n t C o u r 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 .T h 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 c t i o n
of the aforesaid provisions is that the earlier trial would have had to be conducte
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 .S u c h a c o n s t r a i n s h o u l d n o t b e r e a d i n t o
Article 20(2) which would have the effect of defeating very purpose of protection
a g a i n s t d o u b l e 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
territorial jurisdiction over the cause and was legally competent to award a
sentence , the judgement of the foreign Court would have to be taken note of
and would have to be deemed to have a satisfied the provisions of Sections
4 1 a n d 4 2 o f t h 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
all the conditions required for invoking Article 20(20).
ISSUE NO 04

WHETHER LA XMAN PRASAD IS LIABLE TO A CQUIT FROM A LL THE

CHARGES?

It is humbly submitted before the SC that the arrestand trail violate

the Article 20(2) and section 300 osCrpc as the appellant has be
en prose cuted and punished in US. Yes, laxman prasad is liable to
acquit fr o m al l the charges.

According to part III Article 20(2) of In d i an c o n s t it u t i on re a d s

as " No pers on sh all be prose cu ted and punished for the same offen c
e m o r e t h a n o n c e ." T h e c o n c e p t o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y .

The facts on which the appellant had been tried and prosecuted in
the USA being the same as ones inrespect of which he was now
be i n g t r i e d i n In d i a ,t he co n s t i t u t i on a l s af e g u ar d u n d e r A r t i cle 20 (2 ) r
ead withSection 300 of the Code was clearly attr acted to the facts of
the instant case and the proceedings initiated against the appellant
i n I n d i a a r e ,t h e r e f o r e , l i a b l e t o b e q u a s h e d .
 PRAYER

W h e r e f o r e 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 e n t s a d v a n c e d a n d
a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d , t h e D e f e n c e h u m b l y s u b m i t s t h a t t h e H o n ’b l e
Court may be pleased to–

1 .To adm it the plea of Double Jeopardy under A rticle 20(2) of the
Constitution and Section 300 of Code of CriminalProcedure.

2 .T o q u a s h t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n i t i at e d a g a i n s t t h e A p p e l l a n t .

3 . To pass such other orders and further orders as may

be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in interest of justice.

which this Court may deem fit, in the light of equity, justice
and good conscience for which the counsel may for everpray.