Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

AT ARYAVARTA

Special Leave Petition No. ____/2019

IN REFERNCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF SESSIONS COURT NO.___/2019 IN THE

SESSIONS COURT AT ARYAVARTA, UNION OF ARYAVARTA

MR. JOGA BHAI AND OTHERS ……PETITIONER

VS

STATE OF BUNDIKHAND ……RESPONDENT

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (MR. JOGA BHAI AND

OTHERS)

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

SHANKARRAO CHAVAN LAW COLLEGE MOOT COURT, 3 rd .LLB

2019-20

Moot Court No. - 01

Name of the Student – Rushikesh Narendra Patil.

Name of the Class – 3rd LLB

Roll No. - 17

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES-

I. Whether the case is maintainable under Special Leave Petition or not ?

II. Whether Giving slogans Amounts to Defamation ?

III. Whether Arrest, Custody And Prosecution of MLA Have Legal Validity ?

IV. Whether The Death Of Mr. Naresh Styavadi amounts To murder Or

Not?

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8. PRAYER

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Abbreviations –

i. SLP – Special Leave Petition

ii. Cr.P.C. – Criminal Procedure Code
iii. Art. – Article
iv. AIR – All India Reports
v. Govt. – Government
vi. Sec. – Sections
vii. MLA – Member of Legislative Assembly
viii. M.V.A – Motor Vehicle Act
ix. ER – English Reports
x. SCC – Supreme Court Cases
xi. VS – Versus

Books referred –

i. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

ii. Criminal Procedure Code - R.V.Kelkar
iii. The Constitutional Law Of India –M. P. Jain
iv.

Websites links referred –

i. https://scconline.com
ii. Manupatra.com
iii. Highcourt.nic.in
iv. Supremecourtofindia.nic.in
v. Lawoctopus.in
vi. Westlaw.com

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

vii. Legaldesire.in

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA.

THE CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVARTA 1949

ARTICLE 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 JUDGEMENT,

DECREE,

DETERMINATION, SENTENCE OR ORDER IN ANY CAUSE OR ANY MATTER

PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL IN THE TERRITORY OF
ARYAVARTA.

● (2) NOTHING IN CLAUSE (1) SHALL APPLY TO ANY JUDGEMENT,

DETERMINATION,

STATEMENT OR ORDER PASSED OR MADE BY ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL

CONSTITUTED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW RELATING TO ARMED FORCES.

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Petitioner for the purpose of this memorial stands for Mr. Joga Bhai.
2. Respondent for the purpose of this memorial stands for State
Government of Bundikhand.
3. The Petitioner MLA Mr. Joga Bhai was driving his car to the Assembly.
4. The Respondent Police sub-inspector Mr. Naresh Sattyavadi stopped
the car and tried to bribe the petitioner, After denied by petitioner,
respondent started arguing with the petitioner.
5. Petitioner being member of a Legislative Assembly raised the issue in
the assembly and introduced a breach of privilege motion against Mr.
Naresh Sattyavadi.
6. When the discussion was going on in the assembly the Respondent
made an Obscene Gestures looking at the Petitioner and three other
MLA’S.
7. The Respondent also tried to move his right hand towards the service
revolver.
8. Threat shown and provocation by the Respondent, Petitioner and
others for self defence charged blows on him.
9. The Respondent then acted as he felt unconscious.
10. On 7th January, 2019 the Assembly unanimously passed a resolution and
suspended the concerned 4 MLAs from House for 1 month with
immediate effect.
11. After that while MLAs were walking towards the exit gate of the
Assembly, they were arrested and handcuffed by the police within the
premises of the Assembly.
12. Later, they were produced before the Magistrate and sent to 7 days
police custody.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

13. On 12th of January, 2019 Mr. Naresh Sattyavadi died in the hospital due
to internal bleeding in the liver. It was observed that he had been
previously suffering from liver disorder which aggravated his injuries
and subsequent infection to his liver.
14. The police charged the MLAs for Defamation, Grievous Hurt, and
Obstructing public servant from performing his duty and Criminal
Intimidation and Murder under Aryavarta Penal Code.
15. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused MLA’s under the
various sections of the Penal Code whilst they were in the Magisterial
Custody.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Following issues came up before the Honorable Supreme Court for consideration –

I. Whether the case is maintainable under Special Leave Petition or not.

II. Whether giving slogans amounts to Defamation ?

III. Whether Arrest, Custody and Prosecution of MLA have legal validity ?

IV. Whether the Death Of Mr. Naresh Styavadi amounts to murder or not?

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

THE SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court that-

1. Whether the case is maintainable under Special Leave Petition or

not?
Positive.
 Under Article 136, The Constitution of India gives power to the
Supreme Court to grant permission or leave to an aggrieved party
to appeal against an order passed in any of the lower courts or
tribunal in India.
 It can be filed against any Judgment or Decree or Order of any
High Court / Tribunal in the territory of India.
 So, in the pending case Joga Bhai vs. State of Bundikhand,
Magistrate sent them to seven days police custody.

Hence, case is maintainable for the Special Leave Petition.

2. Whether the slogans causes to Defamation or not?

Negative.

 Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is

harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in

specific ways. Libel is a written defamation, slander is a spoken
defamation.
 The slogans said by the appellant was said in the assembly
 The members of the parliament are provided with the liberty of speech
and expression. As the actual essence of our democracy is certainly a free
and fearless discussion, something said by them expressing their views
and thoughts are exempted from any liability and cannot be tried in the
court of law.
 Exception to sec.499

Public conduct of public servants.-It is not defamation to express in good

faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in

the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as

his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

3. Whether the death of the Mr. Naresh Satyavadi is murder or not?

Negative.

 Appellant has no intention of causing the death of police sub-inspector.

 There was no intention of appellant to causing such bodily injury as the

offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the sub-inspector.

 There was no intention of appellant to causing bodily injury to respondent

and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.

 There was no intention of appellant to committing the act which is

dangerous or cause death or such bodily injury which may cause death.

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

4. Whether there was a Breach of Privileged Motion or Not?

Positive.

 A privileged motion is a motion that is granted precedence

over ordinary business because it concerns matters of great
importance or urgency. Such motions are not debatable,
although in case of questions of privilege, the chair may feel
the need to elicit relevant facts from members.

 A motion is a formal proposal by a member to do something.

[1]
 Motions are the basis of the group decision-making process.
[2]
 They focus the group on what is being decided.
Generally, a motion should be phrased in a way to take an
action or express an opinion.

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the case is maintainable under Special Leave Petition or

not?

 Under Article 136, The Constitution of India gives power to the

Supreme Court to grant permission or leave to an aggrieved party
to appeal against an order passed in any of the lower courts or
tribunal in India.
 Meaning of Special Leave Petition :
Special Leave Petition (SLP) means that an individual takes special
permission to be heard in an appeal against any High
Court/Tribunal/Verdict.
SLP shall then become an appeal and the Court will hear the
matter and pass a Judgment.

 It can be filed against any Judgment or Decree or Order of any

High Court / Tribunal in the territory of India.

 So, in the pending case Joga Bhai vs. State of Bundikhand,

Magistrate sent them to seven days police custody.

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

Hence, case is maintainable for the Special Leave Petition.

Caselaw-

Petitioner:
Pritam Singh

V/s

Respondent:
The State
Citation: 1950 AIR 169, 1950 SCR 453

The Supreme Court will not grant special leave to appeal

Under Art. 136 (1) of the Constitution unless it is shown that

exceptional and special circumstances exist, that
substantial and grave injustice has boon done and the case
in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a
review of the decision appealed against.
The view that once an appeal has been admitted by special leave the
entire case is at large and the appellant is free to contest a11 the
findings of fact and raise every point which could be raised in the
High Court is wrong. Only those points can be urged at the final
hearing of the appeal which is fit to be urged at the preliminary stage
when leave to appeal is asked for.

2. Whether the slogans causes to Defamation or not?

 Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is

harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a
result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in
specific ways. Libel is a written defamation, slander is a spoken
defamation.
 The slogans said by the appellant were said in the assembly.

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

The members of the parliament are provided with the liberty of speech
and expression. As the actual essence of our democracy is certainly a free
and fearless discussion, something said by them expressing their views
and thoughts are exempted from any liability and cannot be tried in the
court of law.

 Exception to sec.499

Public conduct of public servants.-It is not defamation to express in good

faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in

the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as

his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

 As per the facts, the police sub-inspector Mr. Naresh Sattyavadi charged
fine of 700 rupees from the petitioner while according to
Section 183 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 amendment of 2017 the penalty
for Over-Speeding is Rupees 400.
Also there was no need to argue with Petitioner as he could have sent the
E-Chalan tracing the Vehicle information.
This proves that he was trying to bribe Mr. Joga Bhai and Mr. Naresh
Sattyavadi was a ‘Corrupt’ Officer.

 According to the post-mortem report which was performed by the Dr.

Dhanwantari Vaidya, Mr. Naresh Sattyavadi had been suffering from the
Liver Disorder which clearly indicates that he was a Drunkard police
officer.
 So, it is humbly submitted before the court that the slogans are not
amount to Defamation.

Case law-

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

Petitioner:
Raju

V/s

Respondent:
Chacko
Citation: 2005 (4) KLT 197

"499.Defamation. -- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be

read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of
such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame
that person.

Explanation I.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a

deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that
person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family
or other near relatives."

Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. is Prosecution for defamation. -- (1) No Court

shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some
person aggrieved by the offence."

 Section 199(1) of the Cr.P.C. also shows that a complaint for defamation
can be launched only by "some aggrieved person". This has certainly got
to be read along with Explanation-I of Section 499 of the IPC. Except a
member of the family or other near relative, no one can be said to be the
aggrieved person when it comes to defamation of a deceased. In that view
of the matter, the 1st respondent must be held not to satisfy the
requirement of his being a person aggrieved by the alleged offence of
defamation committed by the accused persons.

3. Whether the death of the Mr. Naresh Satyavadi is murder or not?

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

Sec. 300. Murder.

Firstly.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is Not

Amounting to murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of

causing death, or

secondly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the

offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm

is caused. Or

Thirdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person

and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course

of nature to cause death, or

Fourthly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently

dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is

likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the

risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

 Appellant has no intention of causing the death of police sub-inspector.

 There was no intention of appellant to causing such bodily injury as the

offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the sub-inspector.

 There was no intention of appellant to causing bodily injury to respondent

and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

 There was no intention of appellant to committing the act which is

dangerous or cause death or such bodily injury which may cause death.

GRIEVOUS HURT U/S. 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "Grievous":

First
Emasculation
Second
Permanent privation of the sight of either eye
Third
Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear
Fourth
Privation of any member or joint
Fifth
Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint,
Sixth
Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
Seventh
Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth,
Eighth
Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during
the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.

 The appellant has not made any kind of injuries mentioned above
in the section of Grievous Hurt.
 The injuries given by the appellant was purely provocation made
by the Respondent by making Obscene Gestures.

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION U/S 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,

reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one
in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to
that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of
such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
 There was no such intention of the appellant to intimidate the
Respondent.
 There was no personal gain and motive involved behind the act
done.
 The Respondent by putting his hand on the service revolver was
threatening the MLAs and so the act done was merely because of
provocation and for self defence. Sec 96 IPC.
 So the act done by the MLAs cannot be considered as Criminal
Intimidation.

4. Whether there was a Breach of Privileged Motion or Not?

Positive.

 A privileged motion is a motion that is granted precedence

over ordinary business because it concerns matters of great
importance or urgency. Such motions are not debatable,
although in case of questions of privilege, the chair may feel
the need to elicit relevant facts from members.

 A motion is a formal proposal by a member to do something.

[1]
 Motions are the basis of the group decision-making process.
[2]
 They focus the group on what is being decided.

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

 Generally, a motion should be phrased in a way to take an

action or express an opinion.
 Rule No 222 in Chapter 20 of the Lok Sabha Rule Book and
correspondingly Rule 187 in Chapter 16 of the Rajya Sabha
Rulebook governs privilege.
 It says that a member may, with the consent of the Speaker or
the Chairperson, raise a question involving a breach of
privilege either of a member or of the House or of the
committee thereof.
 The police officer arrested and handcuffed the MLAs within
the premises of the Assembly which is against their privileges.

PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and Authorities cited, it is most humbly
and respectfully pleaded to this most honorable court to adjudicate and declare that –

1. The appeal should be maintained in the Honorable Supreme Court of

ARYAVARTA.
2. To dismiss the judgment given by the Sessions Court of Bundikhand against
the Appellant.
3. To pass appropriate judgment i.e. to release the appellant from the charges
applied under the Aryavarta Penal Code.

19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 Shankarrao Chavan Law College First Moot Court, 3 rd LLB 2019-20

The counsel for respondent also pleads the honorable court to pass any other
judgment, or which the court deems fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

And for this kindness, the petitioner shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Respectfully Submitted

Place – SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA

Date – 13th August, 2019

Advocate for the Appellant

20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER