MOOT COURT

(LB-501)
Internship Diary

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Faculty of Law Name- Rahul Mandal
(Campus Law Center) Exam Roll No.-20309806573
University of Delhi Class Roll No.- 201598
2022-23 Section – K

1
 Declaration
This declaration is made regarding the internship report which has been prepared by me under
the supervision of Advocate Mukesh. It contains the work accomplished during the internship
which was assigned the internship. This work was done in respect of the partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of the degree of LL.B.

This internship report has not been submitted either in whole or in part to any other Law
University or affiliated Institute under the University of Delhi, recognized by the Bar Council of
India for the award of any law degree or diploma within India.

2
 Acknowledgment
It gives me immense pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness and a deep sense of gratitude and
respect toward Ms. Apanjot Kaur Mam without her support and guidance this valuable
experience of learning would never have been possible.

I am equally indebted to Advocate Mukesh who allowed me to share his chamber and resources
and get a first-hand experience of the advocate-client relationship and explore the preparation of
cases and research methodology better.

I am also thankful to all my colleagues who worked with me for being more than helpful to me.

3
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................5
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................6
Cause Title...............................................................................................................................................8
Name of Advocates.................................................................................................................................8
Name of The Parties................................................................................................................................8
Legal Provisions Involved.........................................................................................................................9
Brief Facts................................................................................................................................................9
Evidence................................................................................................................................................10
Legal Issues............................................................................................................................................10
Prayer....................................................................................................................................................10
Observation in court..............................................................................................................................10
Judgment...............................................................................................................................................12
The present position of case..................................................................................................................12
Case Analysis (2)........................................................................................................................................14
Cause Title.............................................................................................................................................14
Name of the Advocates.........................................................................................................................14
Name of The Parties..............................................................................................................................14
Legal Provisions Involved.......................................................................................................................14
Evidences...............................................................................................................................................15
Legal Issues............................................................................................................................................16
Prayer....................................................................................................................................................16
Observation in court..............................................................................................................................16
Judgment...............................................................................................................................................17
Present position of the case..................................................................................................................17
Legal Document.........................................................................................................................................19
1. (Draft of Bail Petiton u/s- 439 CrPC)..............................................................................................19
2. Affidavit.........................................................................................................................................21
3. WILL...............................................................................................................................................25
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................28
Annexure 1 – Daily Notes..........................................................................................................................29

4
List of Abbreviations

v./vs Versus

& And

Anr. Another

Ors. Others

r/o- Resident of

IPC Indian Penal Code

Para Paragraph

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

Ltd. Limited

Co. Company

Sec. Section

s/o- Son of

Corp. Corporation

No. number

5
Introduction
The legal profession is one of the professions which are considered incomplete without practical
training. This Internship exposed me to the reality of the practice of law in all its dimensions –
the skill of understanding client’s problem and his concerns , analyzing his problems and
applying relevant laws to protect his interest, presenting our point of understanding in a
persuasive manner and probably the most important part – the struggles that await a lawyer’s life
throughout his/her legal profession.

I did my internship under a very learned, humble and attentive Advocate Mukesh.

Though he is well capable of handling both civil and criminal cases smoothly but he specializes
in Criminal Law. He practices in all the courts in Delhi including Supreme Court and High Court
but mostly I went to the Tis Hazari Court with him.

His chamber is situated in Tis Hazari, North Delhi. His office is located in western wing of Tis
Hazari, Chamber No. 727 B.

I worked in his office for two and a half months. In the initial week, Sir (My mentor advocate
Mr. Mukesh) mostly gave me case files of lesser-gravity offences and asked me to learn how to
read the case first and how to find the facts in issue, legal issues, substantial question of law etc.
In the same week my colleagues who comprised juniors as well other interns, taught me to find
cases on Manupatra and SCC website. These were the basic skills to initiate research for any
case. He also dictated me special leave petition, bail applications, injunction petitions etc and
taught me what things are to be taken care while preparing such documents.

From the second week onwards, he started taking me with other interns inside the courtroom
(mostly on the dates of witness examination, legal arguments and delivery of judgement) to
watch the proceedings. Through this I learnt how actually the cases are heard and argued inside
an actual courtroom.

I learnt how to connect legal provisions with case laws and how to search favorable precedents
and how to draft the most commonly required documents in majority of the cases.

It is my immense fortune that within just one month, I got the opportunity to assist him twice at
the Delhi High Court, at three district courts namely Tis Hazari court, Dwarka court and Rohini
Court. I once visited to the District Consumer Redressal Forum (South Delhi) as well.

This internship experience has been very helpful and guiding to me for my future aspirations. I
am heartily thankful to my mentor Advocate Mukesh and to the Faculty of Law on whose
reputation we get a chance to get such valuable internship.

6
7
Case Analysis (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KR. JAIN, ASJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

Cause Title
Appearing on behalf of the Respondent against the Criminal Appeal preferred against the
judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 23/5/2022 by the learned lower court in
Trial no. 25XX of 2018 arising out of complaint case no. 12XX year 2014 filed by complainant
whereby the learned lower court convicted the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under the
aforesaid section and ordered to give Rs. 2 lakhs under section 357(3) of CrPC as compensation
to the complainant and on default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a term of one
month was awarded.

Name of Advocates
For appellants – Advocate Jagdeep Kalra

For Respondents – Advocate Mukesh

Name of The Parties

1. Amit Kumar …….. Appellant

Versus

2. The State of Delhi

3. Parmesh Kumar, the complainant ……..Respondent

8
Legal Provisions Involved
Sections 402 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections 139 and 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

Sections 357 and 82 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Brief Facts
The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant Mr. Parmesh Kumar runs a Tyre-Tube-
Mobil shop in the name of ABC Enterprises at Sant Nagar, Burari. The accused Mr. Amit Kumar
was in need of tyres for his bus and he approached the complainant on his shop and asked to
supply 2 pairs of Tyre-Tube on credit. The complainant reminded him of his earlier dues of Rs.
44,000 but on request and promise of the accused that he would pay the amount within a month,
the complainant supplied one pair of Superking Tyre and Tube of total value of Rs.71,000/- on
credit. Total bill of Rs. 1,15,000/- was issued including earlier dues of Rs. 44,000.

After one month when the complainant demanded the due amount, the accused ultimately gave
him on 16/6/2014 a cheque of Rs.1,15,000 bearing cheque number 0044XX of account number
30040XXXXXXXX situated at Union Bank, Burari Branch. Complainant deposited the cheque
in his bank account on 17/6/2016 for clearance but it could not be honoured because there was
not sufficient fund in the account of accused.

Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice on 3/7/2016 through his advocate demanding the
accused to pay the due amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

The accused failed to pay the due amount in time and thus, the complainant filed a complaint
case under sections 420, 406 IPC and section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

After trial and appreciation of evidences, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgement
and order of conviction and sentenced the accused appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for
2 years under the aforesaid section and ordered to give Rs. 2 lakhs under section 357(3) of CrPC
as compensation to the complainant and on default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a
term of one month was awarded.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order of conviction and
sentence, the convict Amit Kumar has preferred this appeal

9
Evidences
1. PW 1 – Mr. Parmesh Kumar
2. PW 2 – Mr. S. Shankar
3. The cheque number 0044XXdated 16/6/2016 of account number 30040XXXXXXX of
Union Bank of India issued by appellant Amit Kumar for amount of Rs.1,15000 in favour
of ABC Enterprises. (Exhibit 1)
4. The return memo dated 17/6/2016 which shows that the cheque was returned showing
‘fund insufficient’ in the account of accused when presented by the complainant in his
account with Vijaya Bank. (Exhibit 2)
5. Copy of legal notice dated 3/7/2016. (Exhibit 3)
6. Postal Receipt dated 3/7/2016. (Exhibit 4)

Legal Issues
1. Is the complaint petition filed by the accused maintainable given the fact that the cheque
was issued in the name of firm and not in the name of the complainant ?
2. Whether the complainant had the locus standi to file this complaint case ?

Prayer
It is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court may please to:

a. Affirm the trial court’s judgement in whole or in part;

b. Dismiss the appeal or;
c. Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.

Observation in court
 The proceeding started after the learned ASJ asked the appellant counsel to proceed.
 The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the case is based on false allegations and
there is no due of appellant with the respondent. He argued that there has been omission
to consider the fact that the cheque was issued in the name of firm ABC Enterprises and
not in the name of the complainant and the complainant has failed to prove that he is the

10
 owner of ABC Enterprises. Under Negotiable Instrument Act only payee can file a
complaint and thus the complaint petition filed by Parmesh Kumar is not maintainable.
 The learned counsel for appellant referred 2011 CriLJ 1912 (SC) (Milind Sripad
Chandurkar Vs Kalim M Khan and ors.) and 2008 (8) SCC 536- (M/S Shankar
Finance and ors. Vs State of AP) to support his argument.
 He also contended that a blank cheque was given by the appellant to the respondent as a
security against credit and it was agreed between the parties that when the plaintiff will
pay the due amount of Rs.71,000 to the complainant then he will return the said cheque to
the appellant. But when the appellant paid of the due amount in cash the respondent told
him that the cheque has been misplaced and he shall return it after some days. The
respondent has misused the said blank cheque.
 The learned counsel for the respondent and learned APP for the state advocating the
correctness and the validity of the impugned judgement submitted that the prosecution
witness and documentary evidence have substantiated all the ingredients of section 138 of
NI Act. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the judgements of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in K N Beena Vs Muniyappan and ors. (Cri Appeal 1066 of
2001) and Hiten P Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee (Cri Appeal 688 of 1995) and
submitted that under section 118 of NI Act, unless the contrary was proved, it is to be
presumed that the negotiable instrument (including cheque) had been made or drawn for
consideration. Under section 139 of NI Act, the court has to presume unless the contrary
was proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or
in part, of debt liability. The burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for a debt
liability is on the accused.
 Regarding the question whether the said ABC Enterprises belongs to the complainant and
is he the sole owner of it, the respondent counsel argued that the respondent has all VAT
and other receipts to prove the ownership of shop. PW 2 S. Shankar has also corroborated
this fact. No suggestion had been put forth on this issue and nothing in this regard had
been stated by the appellant in his statement under section 313 of CrPC during the trial.
It is apparent from the record that the appellant has admitted the ownership of
complainant during trial at first, and has taken this ground here in appeal. Hence, the

11
 respondent has full locus standi to file the complaint in his own name on behalf of his
shop and the complaint is well maintainable.

The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II adjourned the court and fixed next day for
pronouncement of judgement.

Judgement
The Hon’ble court dismissed the Criminal Appeal with modification in sentence.

The Hon’ble court observed that;

”the object of NI Act is primarily compensatory and punitive element has been given mainly
with object of enforcing compensatory element. The sentence more than one year may be
awarded when compensation under section 357(3) is considered inadequate. The learned lower
court has awarded the appellant sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 years with direction to
give Rs. 2 Lakhs to the complainant under section 357(3) of CrPC as compensation. No reason
has been assigned by the learned lower court as to why the maximum sentence of imprisonment
is being imposed on the appellant.”

Accordingly the Honb’le Appellate Court modified the jail sentence of 2 years and reduced it to
3 months and additional 6 months of imprisonment in case of default of payment of
compensation by the appellant.

As the appellant Amit kumar was on bail, he had been directed to surrender before the learned
lower court immediately to receive the modified sentence and to pay the compensation amount
fixed by the court.

Present position of the case

 The convict did not surrender before the lower court to receive the modified sentence
within 90 days of the passing of judgement as directed by the appellate court.
 The Prosecution then filed a petition before the appellate court for issuance of non-
bailable warrant against the convict.
 Even after two weeks after issuance of non-bailable warrant, the convict is absconding
and has not yet been arrested. Consequently, the prosecution has filed another petition

12
before the learned court to issue Proclamation for absconding convict under section 82 of
the CrPC. The petition is pending as of now.

13
Case Analysis (2)
Date: 26th Oct, 2022

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM (SOUTH)

(Presided by M.C Mehra, President and other members)

Cause Title
A case filed in The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, South Delhi by the complainant
Mr. Hitesh Kumar against the opposite party Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
For breach of service under terms and conditions of the insurance and sought a relief of Rs.
3,72,514.00 including the compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

Name of the Advocates

For the complainant – Advocate Mukesh

For the Opposite Party – Advocate Naresh Gaba

Name of The Parties

Hitesh Kumar …….. Complainant

S/o- Ramesh Singh

R/o- Janak Puri, Distt.- West Delhi

Versus

Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. …….. OPPOSITE PARTIES

& Ors.

Legal Provisions Involved

Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

14
Section 2 (o) of Consumer Protection Act,1986

Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act,1986

Brief Facts

The complainant Hitesh Kumar had taken a health insurance plan of Max New York Life
Insurance Co. Ltd. Under Lifeline Medicash Plus Plan scheme containing policy number
81291XXXX effective since 26th Feb of 2017. In the due course of Insurance period, the
complainant became sick and he was treated at Amarleela Hospital under treatment of Dr. R.
Kumar and after due treatment he referred the complainant for better treatment on 5 th of February
2018 and thereafter he was treated in Kalra Hospital on 12.03.2018 wherein he was detected as
R.H.D (Cardio Patient). Then he went to Sri Sai Institute of Higher Medical Science, Bangalore.
The complainant was medically examined and advised by the doctors for immediate surgery.
Thereafter, the complainant was admitted at Max Health Care Super Specialty Hospital at Saket,
New Delhi on 26.3.2018 and treatment cost od Rs.3,22,514.00 was deposited by him.

The complainant has filed his medical claim before the opposite party with all the required
documents on 21.04.2018 but uptill now, the complainant has not taken any steps towards
entertaining the claim of the complainant. The complainant has repeatedly made requests and
even visited the office of opposite party multiple times but only fake assurance and no relief has
been given to him.

The opposite parties have falsely stated that the claim has been closed in the absence of requisite
documents that were not produced by the complainant even after various reminders by them and
since it is the complainant party that failed to provide the requisite documents, the complaint is
not maintainable.

Evidences
1. Copy of Max New York Life Insurance bond paper
2. Copy of Inpatient Bill Summary

15
 3. Copy of Outpatient Bill Summary
4. Copy of Discharge Summary of Max Health Care Super Specialty Hospital at Saket, New
Delhi
5. Copy of Renewal of premium of Rs.7091.00 payment receipt
6. Photo copy of receiving of claim document with respect to claim reference number
T.P.A/20XXXXX
7. Copy of referral document by Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Science,
Bangalore

Legal Issues
1. Is the complaint maintainable under Consumer Protection Act?
2. Is there deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

Prayer
In the abovementioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble
Forum may be pleased to:
a.     Order the opposite party to pay Rs.3,22,514.00 as the insurance-covered expense and
Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and litigation costs;
b.    Pass any other such order, as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interests
of justice.

Observation in court
The opposite parties had already appeared on previous date and submitted their joint statement
that the complaint is false, malafied and nothing but an abuse of law as it was meant for taking
undue advantage of the law. They had also submitted that the claim of the complainant was
closed due to absence of requisite documents that were not provided by the document and thus,
the complaint was not maintainable.

The complainant party proceeded to make its submissions against the objections submitted my
the opposite party.

16
The counsel of the complainant argued that the objections raised by the opposite party is false
and baseless. He then adduced two documents to show that the necessary documents were sent to
the insurance company well within the time.

The president and the other two members agreed to the correctness of Complainant’s exhibits
and asked the opposite party if they had anything to add to their objection. The opposite party
replied in negative.

The President of the 3-member bench then adjourned the hearing and fixed the next day for
pronouncement of order.

The whole hearing took less than 20 minutes.

Judgement
The forum held that it was not necessary that the family of a person going through a serious by-
pass surgery should provide all the documents including technical documents well within the
time as provided by the insurance company. What is necessary is that the insurance company
(opposite party) is provided with all the documents that are necessary to enable it to process the
claim.

According to para 10 of the terms and conditions of the alleged insurance, the company must
receive satisfactory proof of the happening of insured event and its cause and further receive the
claim application form, attending registered medical practitioner’s statement in a pre-specified
format, attending registered medical practitioner’s statement in a pre-specified format, all
hospitalization bills and receipts, FIR and policy report (if applicable).

In the present case, annexures attached by the complainant admittedly show that he has filed all
such documents required under the terms and conditions of the policy. It further appears that the
opposite parties have deliberately made harassment to the complainant and caused agony to him
and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get relieves as for medical expenses Rs.3,22,514.00 and
for mental agony Rs.25,000.00 and for other expenses including litigation cost Rs.5000.00
making a total of Rs.3,52,514.00 (Three Lakhs fiftytwo thousand five hundred and fourteen
only). The opposite party is directed to pay the amount Rs.3,52,514.00 to the complainant within
two months from the date of order failing which the complainant will be entitled to an interest
@8 per cent per annum.

Present position of the case

The judgement was delivered on 26.07.2022 by the learned forum. The opposite party had to pay
the insurance amount till 26.09.2022 but they have not paid it yet.

17
The complainant has filed an Application for Execution of the said order on 14.10.2022 under
section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act.

18
Legal Document
1. (Draft of Bail Petiton u/s- 439 CrPC)

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO…………………. OF 2022

(Under Section 439 Cr.PC)

DISTRICT-SOUTH DELHI

Ratan Aggarwal………………………………….……………………..Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Delhi…………………………………………………………….Opposite party

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the aforesaid court.

The humble application of abovenamed applicant most respectfully showeth as

under:

1. The full facts and circumstances of the case have been disclosed in the accompanying
affidavit; which may form part of this application.
2. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the accompanying
affidavit; it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble court may graciously
be pleased to allow this application and enlarge the applicant on bail in case crime no...20
of 2022 under section 498A, 323and 504 IPC and 3\4 D.P. Act, Lajpat Nagar Police
Station, District- South Delhi, during the pendency of trial before the trial court.

19
 PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to
allow this application and enlarge the applicant on bail in case crime no...20 of 2022 under
section 498A, 323and 504 IPC and 3\4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lajpat Nagar Police Station, District-
South Delhi, during the pendency of trial before the court below.

Date: / / 2022

(MANISH KUMAR )

Counsel for the Applicant

20
 2. Affidavit

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022

(Under Section 439 Cr.PC)

DISTRICT-SOUTH DELHI

Ratan Aggarwal………………………………….……………………..Applicant

VERSUS

State Of Delhi…………………………………………………………….Opposite party

Affidavit of D. Kashyap son of Sri C.B.

Kashyap aged about 62 years, resident of

Shivpuri colony, Lajpat Nagar

District-South Delhi.

Occupation- Retire from the service.

Religion- Hindu.

(DEPONENT)

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as under:

1. That the deponent is father of the applicant and he is doing pairvi on behalf of the
applicant in the present case and as such is fully conversant with the facts of the
present case.

21
2. That this is the first bail application being filed by the applicant before this Hon’ble
court in case crime no ...20 of 2022 under section 498A, 323and 504 IPC and 3\4 D.P.
Act, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, District- South Delhi, and no other bail application has been
filed before this Hon’ble court.
3. That the alleged incident has said to have taken place from 10.12.2018 to 10.5.2022,
about which a F.I.R was lodged on 23.5.2022 at about 16:22 hrs,while the distance
between the place of incident and police station is 3 kilo meter in the west as vide
case crime no. ...20 of 2022 under section 498A, 323and 504 IPC and 3\4 D.P. Act,
P.SLajpat Nagar, District- South Delhi after too much delay, after thought and
consultation after taking legal advice. A true/certified copy of the F.I.R dated
23.7.2022 being filed herewith and marked herewith as Annexure No.1 to this
affidavit.
4. That it is first alleged in the First Information Report that informant had married his
daughter Varsha with the applicant, in which he has given dowry as per his capacity,
in which a swift dezire car, cash and other articles amounting Rs 20 lacs. He further
alleged that the family members were not happy and after few days of marriage, they
started demanding additional Rs.25 lacs and when the same was not provided them
then the applicant started torturing his daughter. He further alleged his daughter has a
baby in womb and applicant is making pressure to get it aborted. He further alleged
that on 10.6.2022 the applicant and his parents made pressure for abortion and when
she denied then applicant and his parents after committing Marpeet (altercation) tried
to throw her below from the house about which information was given on 100
numbers. For kind perusal of this Hon’ble court true and certified copy of the First
Information Report is already annexed in the preceding paragraph.
5. That on 11.5.2022 victim Varsha was alleged to have been medically examine. A
True/photocopy of the medical report is being filed herewith and marked herewith as
Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.
6. That the investigating officer recorded the statement of the informant under section
161 Cr.PC on 19.5.2022.A true copy of the statement of the informant under section
161 Cr.PC is being filed herewith and marked herewith as Annexure No.3 to the
affidavit.
7. That the investigating officer has also recorded the statement of Smt. Varsha on
19.5.2022. A true copy of the statement of Smt. Varsha under section 161 Cr.PC is
being filed herewith and marked herewith as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.
8. That the investigating officer has also recorded the statement of Dr. Sangeeta Goel
and Dr. D.K. Verma of M.M.G. Hopspital,South Delhi on 22.5.2022. A true copy of
the statement of Dr. Sangeeta Goel and Dr. D.K. Verma are collectively being filed
herewith and marked herewith as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit.
9. That the investigating officer has also recorded the statement of independent
witnesses and reached on conclusion that the younger brother of the applicant namely
Ashutosh Kashyap was falsely dragged into the present case, who was residing in
22
 Bangalore for a long time and exonerate in the present case and forwarded charge
sheet against the applicant and his parents namely Sri D. Kashyap and Madhuri
Sharma, which belies the whole prosecution story.
10. That the applicant and his other family members are innocent and falsely implicated
in the present case with ulterior motive to blackmail. Applicant has never demand
dowry as alleged in the First Information Report never tortured in connection with the
same, never committed marpeet.
11. That the marriage of the applicant and Smt. Varsha was solemnized on the basis of
matrimonial site and informant had cheated applicant by not disclosing the chronic
diseases i.e. epilepsy, mental illness, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and jerks etc.
about which applicant came to know when she came at the house of the applicant
after getting married. A true and photocopy of the medical prescription showing the
disease and treatment of daughter of the respondent no.3 is being filed herewith and
marked herewith as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit.
12. That in the alleged incident although Smt. Varsha has not received any injury and
alleged injury report is false and fabricated and was prepared in collusion with doctor
concern.
13. That in the alleged injury report dated 9.6.2018 injury no.2, 3, 4 are simple in nature
and injury no.1 advice for x-ray, however, it is admitted the version of informant that
no x-ray of his daughter was conducted at any point of time.
14. That from perusal of statement of Dr. Sangeeta Goel and Dr. D.K.Verma, it is evident
that no mark of injury or damage of any kind to the victim Varsha, which belies the
whole prosecution case.
15. That the daughter of the informant is quarrelsome lady due to her abnormal behavior,
she used to quarrel unnecessarily and on 10.6.2022, she quarreled with the applicant
and other family members and called informant, who called the police by dialing 100
number and without any rhyme and reason got the applicant arrested, as such the
informant and his daughter are unnecessary hostile to the applicant and his family
member with ulterior motive implicated in present case.
16. That the applicant is highly qualified and after completing his M.C.A was doing a job
in Damco Solution Pvt. Ltd., which is an I.T. company and deals in B.P.O services
for about 3 years and has never demanded dowry as alleged in the incident.
17. That the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated by the informant with the
ulterior motive, whereas the applicant or his other family members have never
demanded any dowry with the informant.
18. That the applicant commands good respect in his society has moveable and
immoveable property as such, there is no chance of absconding or tampering with
the witnesses.
19. That the applicant is ready to furnish the reliable sureties to the satisfaction of this
Hon’ble court for release on bail by this Hon’ble court.

23
 20. That the applicant is in jail since 13.6.2022 and prior to this case applicant has no
criminal antecedent.
21. That the application for the bail of the applicant has been rejected by the In-
Charge Sessions Judge, South Delhi vide order dated 18.5.2022. A true/free copy
of the bail rejection order dated 18.6.2022 is being annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure No.7 to this affidavit.
22. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is expedient in the
interest of justice that this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this
application and enlarge the applicant on bail in case crime no...20 of 2022 under
section 498A, 323and 504 IPC and 3\4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lajpat Nagar, District-
South Delhi, during the pendency of trial in the court below.
I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of
paragraph no…......1,2,4,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 of this affidavit are true
to the best of my personal knowledge; and those of contents of paragraphs no.
….3, 5, 6,7,8,11,21 of the same are based on perusal of record; and those of
contents of paragraph no. …..22of the same are based on legal advice; which all I
believe to be true and no part of the same is false and nothing has been concealed
in it.

Deponent

I, Lalit Kumar, Advocate High Court, Delhi do hereby declare that the person who is making
this affidavit and alleging himself to be the deponent is the same person. He is known to me
from the papers produced before me in connection with above noted case.

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me on 5.7.2022 at about 11:00 AM by the deponent who has been
identified by the above noted person.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this
affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me.

Oath Commissioner

24
 3. WILL
I, Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of Shri Pankaj Gupta , aged about 65 years, resident of Shanti Niwas ,
211/5 Rajender Nagar, Central Delhi hereby make this last Will and Testament which contains
my desire for the enjoyment of properties till I die.

WHEREAS this Will cancels all my previous Wills/Codicils made upto this day.

AND WHEREAS this Testament shall take effect only on my demise and till such time I shall
continue to enjoy the properties that I own.

IDENTIFICATION OF FAMILY

1. Shri Pankaj Gupta - husband

2. Shri Ravi Gupta - son
3. Shri Vinay Gupta - son
4. Smt. Shikha Gupta - daughter
Wife of shri Pratap Sinha
5. Smt. Jaya Gupta - daughter
Wife of shri Shashi Shekhar
6. Smt. Divyanka Gupta – daughter-in-law
Wife of Shri Pankaj Gupta
7. Shri Rahul Gupta grand - grandson
Son of Shri Pankaj Gupta

IDENTIFICATION OF ASSETS

A. IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
1. A house named Devi Bhawan bearing number 47/12 built on a plot of land in
Rajanbigha, Ghaziabad measuring 60 sq. yard allotted to me and registered as book
no. 352 vol. 3 & date 24-10-1995

25
B. MOVABLE PROPERTY

1. Fixed Deposit made with any bank in my name.

2. Jewellery containing 2 pairs of gold earrings, 1 gold chain, 2 pairs of silver Payal , 1
gold ring and 2 silver rings.
3. All my households and personal belongings at Devi Bhawan 47/12, Ghaziabad and at
Shanti Niwas 211/5 Rajender Nagar, Central Delhi.

DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY

I give, leave and bequeath voluntarily and out of my own free will in a sound state of
mind my all movable and immovable properties to my husband Shri Pankaj Gupta who
shall become absolute owner of the same on my demise.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. That any movable and immovable properties which I will be possessed of at the time
of my demise and not stated above shall also devolve on my husband.
2. That my not providing anything in favour of my daughters and sons is intentional.

NOMINATION OF EXECUTOR
I appoint Shri Manipal Gupta, son of Shri Dharmpal Gupta resident of Rajender
Nagar, Central Delhi as the executor of this Will.

POWERS OF EXECUTOR
My executor shall have the right to administer my estate using informal,
unsupervised, independent probate or equivalent legislation without intervention of
Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I Kamla Devi put my signature on this day of 11 th of July
2022 at District Court Tis Hazari.
(__________________)
EXECUTANT

26
We the undersigned, hereby certify that the above instrument, which consists of 3 pages
including the page which contains the witness signature, has been signed in our sight and
presence by Shri Manipal Gupta, the executant, who declared this to be his last Will and
Testament and we at the executant’s request and in the executant’s sight and presence and in the
sight and presence of each other, do hereby subscribe our names as witnesses on the date shown
above.

WITNESSES :

1. Name ________________ Signature

S/o __________________
R/o__________________
Address______________

2. Name ________________ Signature

S/o __________________
R/o__________________
Address ______________

27
Conclusion
The internship under the guidance of my Mr. Krishna Murari Yadav and under the supervision of
my learned mentor and advocate Mr. Mukesh proved to be a very valuable , eye-opening and
memorable experience of the academic life. This was in fact a bridge between the student life
and professional life. The internship made me aware how responsible one has to be if he decides
to become a lawyer by profession.

Within a short span of time , my supervisor-senior taught me many useful things such as filing of
cases , finding records , researching online and offline, drafting documents and everything that I
had expected to learn.

What was surprising to me that I never expected to learn the delicacy of lawyer-client
relationship. I also developed an understanding about the situation a client faces when he is
labelled with false charges. I learnt how a confident lawyer can comfort him even before the
trial begins and he saves him. The amount of respect a client in need pays to a lawyer is
heavenly.

Unfortunately , the system of judiciary is not upto the mark even in Delhi. I was very surprised
when cases of minor offences came for hearing after 5-10 years. It has been rightly said that
justice delayed is justice denied. And the more unfortunate things is that nobody is to be blamed
– neither judges , nor advocates nor the clients. It is the lack of sufficient number of courts and
judges that creates this lag.

Still, Internship has been the best part of LL.B till now for me. I hope the continuous internship
i.e, advocacy also turns out be equally satisfying.

28
Annexure 1 – Daily Notes
Date: 1st Oct, 2022

The very first day of my internship I was asked to report at the chambers of Adv. Mukesh by 10
am which is located at Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. There I was introduced with my co-interns
and the associates present at the moment.

After that, I was asked to go to the office of Mukesh Sir which is located at Tis Hazari, Delhi. In
office as it was my first day, I was asked to help my co- interns who were already researching on
a case. Thereafter, after lunch I was asked to read a case named Yashpal v. Mukesh and prepare
notes of it as it was put up for revision at Sessions Court Dwarka. It was a case under the
domestic violence act. After that I was informed about the court number at which I was supposed
to report the next day. Around 6pm Mukesh Sir came to the office and asked every intern about
the work we did that day. He sat with us and talked to us for quite some time and thereafter we
were allowed to leave around 7pm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPLAV DABASH, ASJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE V. SANJAY WALAI

The facts of this case are that the accused open a company under the Companies Act and
convinced people to invest money in it by making false claims that after one year they will get
more than 25% of this amount. Many people believed in this scheme and invested their money.
After an year they realized that the they have been cheated by the accused and they filed a
complaint against the accused and chargesheet was filed under section 420 and 406 of IPC. On
that day of the hearing the accused came and deposed. The case was then put up for examination
in chief.

29
Date: 7th Oct,2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ASJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

HARBHAJAN V. STATE OF NCT

The facts of this case were that the father of the applicant died. And after his death the applicant
wanted to withdraw money from his bank account but when he enquired, he found out that his
father has not appointed any nominee. He filed a case in the court that he is the only legal heir of
his father and he be granted The Letter of Administration so that he can withdraw the money
from his father bank account. The letter of administration is a letter given by the court wherein it
states that the person/ persons mentioned therein is/are the legal heir of the deceased. In this case,
the court on precious date ordered the investigating officer to enquire about the legal heirs of the
deceased. IO submitted his report and the court after taking the report into consideration held that
the applicant is the sole legal heir of the deceased and he be allowed to withdraw money from his
father’s bank account. Thus, letter of administration was granted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUMIT ANAND, MM, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

30
STATE V. GIRISH NAYYAR

The facts of this have already been mentioned above. On previous date we filed an application
under section 311 CrPC to recall a witness because we couldn’t cross examine him. Our
application was allowed and this date was given to us to cross examine the witness. Thus, the in
charge of Gurudwara was called again and we crossed him on the statement deposed by him.
After the cross was completed the case was put up for next day to call another witness.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10th Oct , 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI DINESH BHATT, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

NEENA V. S.G. VATS

The facts of this case were that the plaintiff Neena filed for maintenance under section 125 CrPC
from the defendant, her husband Mr. Vats for herself and her two children. Learned Sessions
Judge ordered the defendant to pay monthly allowance of a sum of rupees Twenty Thousand
only to his wife, the plaintiff. Even after the order was made, defendant did not pay the
maintenance amount and thus plaintiff filed this application of execution of order of
maintenance. We were from the plaintiff’s side. The learned Judge told the defendant to either
deposit the monthly allowance right there or to face imprisonment for one month. Defendant
then paid the sum to the defendant right there in the court.

31
Date: 11th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUMIT ANAND, MM, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE V. GIRISH NAYYAR

The facts of this case were that the accused Girish was caught stealing money from the daan peti
of the Gurudwara situated at Vasant Kunj. He had previously been convicted for theft where he
was stealing money from the Church. In the present case he was charged under section 380 IPC.
We were representing the accused in this case. On that date we filed an application under section
311 CrPC. Under this section the court may at any stage of any inquiry, trail or other proceeding
can recall and re-examine any person already examined. In our case there was one witness whose
chief examination was done but due to some reason we couldn’t cross examine him so we file
this application to recall him so we could cross- examine him. The learned magistrate allowed
the application and ordered to recall the witness for cross examination. The case was then put up
for cross examination on 23rd July 2022.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI NIPUM AWASTHI, MM, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

ENFORCEMENT DIRCTORATE(ED) V. HARSHITA PVT LTD.

32
The facts of this case are that the accused is a private limited company formed under the
Companies Act. It is alleged by the ED that the accused has not paid tax on one of its transaction
thus resulting in Government’s loss. On that day the case was put up for arguments on charge.

The argument on ED’s side was that the accused company exported certain goods to another
country and received its payment through some other indirect means and did not pay the taxes
for that transaction thus resulting in loss of the government. On the other side, we argued that the
goods exported by the accused company were never received by anyone. The person who was
supposed to receive those goods backed off and never took the delivery. It was argued that as
nobody accepted the delivery there was no payment made for the goods. The reason for not
paying tax on that particular transaction was that they never received any payment. The accused
company is a reputed company who had no past history of not paying the taxes. Thus it was
pleaded that the accused be discharged. The learned magistrate ordered to call for certain other
records to form an opinion. The case as then put up for next date.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:14th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI MONA T KERKATA, ASJ, SAKET COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

BRIHAMLAL V. POONAM NARULA& ANR.

The facts of this case were that the plaintiff herein had two shops rented to the defendants father.
After the death of the defendants father, defendant and her husband occupied the suit property

33
and started living there. As it was commercial property, defendants used it for residential
purposes. Because of which plaintiff asked them to vacate his shops. He served them with legal
notice under The Transfer of Property Act. Defendants sent their reply wherein they claimed that
suit property is their property as their deceased father had bought it from the plaintiff. The case
of the plaintiff was that he is the landlord of the suit property and the defendants are tenants. He
has filed for eviction. On the other hand it was the case of the defendants that they are not the
tenants as their deceased father had bought this property from the plaintiff. On that date the case
was put up for Cross Examination of Plaintiff. As it is a civil case there was no examination in
chief. Plaintiff submitted his statement by way of affidavit. Counsel for the defendant started the
cross examination and asked multiple questions like where was he employed, how long he is
living in the suit property, was there a lease deed, what were the terms of the deed etc. The
plaintiff was then asked to produce the lease deed. The cross examination was further deferred.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUMIY ANAND, MM, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE V. SULBH BHARADAWAJ

The facts of this case were that the accused belonged to a Hindu Sabha. One day he called the
police and informed them that on the bus he was travelling, there was an abandoned bag which
has two pistols and some pamphlets. The police took the bag into its custody and after inquiry, it
was found that the accused himself placed the bag there and was trying to create some kind of
communal violence. Police arrested him and after few weeks he got bail and now he is under
trail. On the date of hearing he was supposed to be present in the court but we moved an
application for exemption and requested the court to exempt him for that day as someone in his

34
immediate neighbor expired that morning and he had to attend the last rites because of which he
was unable to attend the court proceedings. It was respectfully prayed that the accused be
exempted from personal appearance for that day in the interest of justice. Exemption was
allowed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, ASJ, SAKET COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

SUMIT KUMAR V. SUB INSPR. HARISH KUMAR AND ANR.

The facts of this case are that this is a revision petition filed for setting aside the impugned order
Dated 28/11/2018 passed by Hon’ble court of Shri Harun Partap MM, South East Saket, whereby
complaint u/s 200 Cr.PC. has been dismissed and DCP concerned has been asked to take action
u/s 182 IPC against the Petitioner without any justified reason. We are representing the
plaintiff’s side. Sir argued that the impugned order is arbitrary and has been passed without
correctly considering documents produce and statements of witnesses deposed before Hon’ble
court. That learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not considered material available on the court
file. That the learned magistrate has given one of the reasons that proposed accused are serving
police officials and no sanction for prosecution has been taken under section 197 CrPc. It has
been made clear by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case FAKHRUZAMMA v. STATE OF
JHARKHAND &ANR. JT 2013(15) SC 371 that SI rank of police is appointed by the DCP and
also authority to remove the SI from service is DCP hence this rank is not covered by section 197

35
CrPC. After hearing the arguments, court allowed the revision petition and stayed the action
under section 182 IPC and directed the lower court to hear the matter afresh.

Date: 17th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI LAL SINGH, ASJ, ROUSE AVENUE COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

CBI V. O.P.GUPTA & ORS.

The facts of this case are that the accused are section officers of DDA and it is alleged that they
had sold 112 flats of DDA in illegal manner. When DDA found about it they filed a complaint to
CBI and thus the present case. On the date of the hearing the case was put up for prosecution
evidence. Bank manager came with the original documents which were attached with the
chargesheet. Those documents were produced before the court and the evidences given by the
bank manager were taken into courts consideration. There was no chief or cross examination of
the bank manager as only the validity of the documents was in question and he was just there to
produce the original documents. The case was put up for next date.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18th Oct, 2022

IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM CENTRAL AT ISBT, KASHIMERE GATE, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

36
R. RAKESH V. M/S BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

The facts of this case are that the complainant took travel insurance from the opposite party and
went to China for 10 days. In these days he got severe stomach pain and got himself admitted in
a hospital there. He was in hospital for 28 hours. They ran some tests and prescribed some
medicines and the hospital bill amounted to 1,10,000/-. On his return to India he claimed that
amount from the insurance company. But the insurance company denied his claim stating that he
had prior history of kidney stone. Then the complainant filed this case under section 12 of the
consumer protection act. That day was the first day of the case. We were from the complainant’s
side. We opened the case and told the court all the facts and how we have been cheated by the
insurance company. After that when it was insurance company’s turn to put up their case they
straightaway said that the company will pay the entire amount to the complainant. They gave a
demand draft of the above mentioned amount then and there in the court itself. Case was closed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KR. JAIN, ASJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

Appearing on behalf of the Respondent against the Criminal Appeal preferred against the
judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 23/5/2022 by the learned lower court in
Trial no. 25XX of 2018 arising out of complaint case no. 12XX year 2014 filed by complainant
whereby the learned court convicted the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years under the aforesaid section
and ordered to give Rs. 2 lakhs under section 357(3) of CrPC as compensation to the
complainant and on default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a term of one month was
awarded.

37
The major point of consideration was whether the complainant had the locus standi to file this
complaint case.

The Hon’ble court ruled in affirmative and dismissed the appeal.

Date: 20th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, ASJ, SAKET COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

RITESH KUMAR V. STATE

The facts of this case were that the accused Ritesh has murdered one of his neighbors and has
been sentenced to an imprisonment for 10 years. He has already spent three and a half years in
jail and his conviction has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. On the date of the hearing we
have approached the court for grant of parole. We have moved an application for parole as his
real sister is getting married and he is the only male member of the family. As there are lot of
works in a wedding, the accused mother would not be able to handle it all alone so it was prayed
to the Hon’ble Court to grant the accused parole for 6 weeks. Court asked for the wedding card
which was handed to it. After that parole was granted for 6 weeks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21st Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI KIRAN BANSAL, ASJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE V. VINOD BALUJA

38
The facts of this case are that the accused Vinod was construction his house. In between the
construction two MCD junior engineer came to his house and threatened him that they would
stay the construction and seal his property if he did not pay them bribe. In order to complete the
construction accused paid them 6 lakhs bribe and thereafter he completed the construction. After
the construction was completed someone complained to MCD that the construction was
unauthorized. After the complaint, MCD officers came to his house and demolished parts of his
house. Seeing that even after paying 6 lakhs bribe to MCD JE his house was abolished his filed a
writ petition in High Court against the two JE who took bribe from him. They were booked for
taking bribe. In addition High Court directed the lower court to start a case against the accused
also because if taking bribe is a crime tan giving bribe is also a crime. Thus this case. On that
date the case was put up for evidence. Accused himself was supposed to give statement that day
but we had to file his exemption because he was a cancer patient in his old age. He had his
chemo therapy that day and his son came with his medical documents. Court exempted him for
that day but gave strict instructions that he has to be present on the next date under all
circumstances. Exemption was thus allowed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22nd Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI N.K. LAKA, MM, SAKET COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

OMPAL V. MAMTA PODAR & ORS

The facts of this case were that the Plaintiff Ompal had a plot located at Badarpur Border road
which was enclosed by Defendants Mamta and her brothers by illegal means. Case was then filed
39
by Mr. Ompal to get his plot back. We were representing the plaintiff Ompal in this case. The
case was put up for prosecution evidence on that date. The learned magistrate directed both the
parties to submit all the relevant evidences to the local commissioner. Advocate A.K.Shrivastav
was then appointed the local commissioner by the court. Detailed order was passed by the
magistrate and dasti order was given to the parties.

Date: 25th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, ASJ, SAKET COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA V. SATINDER GOEL

The facts of this case are: complainant Anil filed a case against the accused Satinder under
section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It was the case of the complainant that the accused
gave him two cheques which bounced. We were representing the accused. It was our case that
both the complainant and the accused used to do some business in a shop together and after some
time they both parted their ways. It was after this that the complainant found two signed cheques
of accused. There was no name on the neither was any amount filed. Complainant then filled his
name and amount on those signed cheques of the accused and put them in bank. Due to
insufficiency of funds the cheque bounced and thus this case. On that day the case was put up for
cross examination of the accused.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26th Oct, 2022

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM (SOUTH)

It was the argument stage of a case that was filed in The District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, South Delhi by the complainant Mr. Hitesh Sharma against the opposite party Manager,
40
Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. For breach of service under terms and conditions of the
insurance and sought a relief of Rs. 3,72,514.00 including the compensation for mental agony
and litigation costs.

The judgement was fixed to be delivered the next day.

Date: 27th Oct, 2022

IN THE COURT OF SHRI G. P. SINGH, ASJ, DWARKA COURT, DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

YASHPAL V. MUKESH

The facts of this case were that Ms. Mukesh (wife) filed a case against Mr. Yashpal (husband)
under section 12 of The Domestic Violence Act and there were certain orders given by the
learned metropolitan magistrate which were not correct. We went in revision under section 397
CrPC, 1973 to the sessions court against all those orders.

The first point taken in consideration by the learned sessions court was whether it had
jurisdiction to entertain the revision application filed by the appellant Mr. Mukesh. The Hon’ble
judge held that the orders made under section 12 of the domestic violence act or the DV Act
itself doesn’t come within the preview of revision rather there is a provision under section 29 of
the DV act under which an appeal lies against such orders. Though he had the power to convert
revision application to appeals but he did not use that power instead he asked us to file a fresh
appeal.

41