TC 31 Respondent

~ Shri. G.K.
Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition~
TEAM CODE:- 31
___________________________________________________________________________
Shri. G.K. Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
______________________________________________________________
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: ___/ 2023
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE OF HARI PRADESH
VERSUS
MR. RAMESH
________________________________________________________________
MEMOERIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
SPEAKER 1: Animesh Shukla

SPEAKER 2: Muskan Rafiq
RESEARCHER: Vanshika Bhalwal
- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 1 -

~ Shri. G.K. Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................
ISSUES RAISED ...................................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .........................................................................................
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................
[ISSUE I] WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF HINDISTAN IS MAINTAINABLE?
[ISSUE- II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985?
[ISSUE-III] WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

OFFICER IS NOT PRESENT,CAN BE TREATED AS A CONFESSION MADE TO A
POLICE OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 26 OF THE HINDISTAN
EVIDENCE ACT, 1985?
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. NDPS Act: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

2. Ph.D.: Doctor of Philosophy
3. Hari Pradesh: Indian state mentioned in the scenario
4. Rs.: Indian Rupees (currency)
5. NDPS: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
6. NDPS officer: Officer under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act
7. NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
8. NDPS department: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
department
9. NDPS High Court: Hari Pradesh High Court dealing with NDPS
cases
10. Rs. 5 lakhs: 500,000 Indian Rupees (fine imposed)
11. Special Court: Court constituted under the NDPS Act
12. SHO: Station House Officer (police officer in charge of a police
station)
13. Article 136: Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan (India)
regarding special leave to appeal
14. Hindistan Evidence Act: Indian Evidence Act of 1872

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
JUDICIAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS
1. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011)

2. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002)
3. State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Ors. (2016)
4. Maharashtra v. Vijay & Ors.
5. State of Maharashtra vs. Jothirao
6. Hemp Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India
7. Munawar Ali vs. Union of India
8. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
9. State of Rajasthan v. Jai Prakash
10. Queen Empress vs. Narayan
STATUTES
1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985
2. Constitution of Hindistan, 1950
3. Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872
BOOKS
1. "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: An Analytical Commentary"

by V. R. Manohar
2. "Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872: Law, Practice and Procedure" by Sumeet Malik
3. "Constitutional Law of Hindistan" by H. M. Seervai
4. "Ayurveda and Cancer: An Integrative Approach" by Sunil Anand
5. "Legal Aspects of Drug Control in Hindistan" by Sanjeev Sharna
6. "Medical Jurisprudence, Toxicology and Forensic Science" by Modi

7. "Criminal Law: Cases and Materials" by Kumar S., Jain P.
8. "Introduction to Criminal Law in Hindistan" by Dr. K.I. Vibhute
9. "Legal Research and Methodology" by R.K. Verma
10. "Drugs and Narcotic Laws: Including Opium and Cocaine" by H.C. Sahni
RESEARCH DATA BASE

1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Legal Kanoon
4. West Law India

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
May it please the Hon'ble Court,The Respondent respectfully submits this

statement of jurisdiction in response to the Special Leave Petition filed by
the State challenging the judgement of the Hari Pradesh High Court. The
present appeal is made under Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan,
which empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Hindistan.
The jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is invoked as the matter at hand

involves questions of law of public importance and the interpretation of
statutes, specifically the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 and the Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872.
The issues raised in this appeal have far-reaching implications not only for
the parties involved but also for the legal framework governing drug-related
offences and evidentiary matters in Hindistan.
Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

possesses the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues raised in the
present appeal and prays for the same to be considered accordingly.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
May it please the Hon'ble Court,
1. Hindistan, a developing country with a population exceeding 1.4 billion

people, has made significant strides in various sectors including infrastructure,
standard of living, education, and healthcare.
2. Despite progress, Hindistan grapples with the menace of drug abuse and
smuggling of illicit substances. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act (NDPS), 1985, serves as the central legislation to combat this
issue.
3. Mr. Ramesh, a respected Ayurvedic doctor residing in Binduana, Hari

Pradesh, holds a Ph.D. in Ayurveda and has received recognition for his
contributions to cancer treatment research using Ayurvedic medicine.
4. On 2nd June 2022, Mr. Ramesh was arrested by NDPS officers for cultivating
bhang on his property without proper authorization. He claimed the cultivation
was for medical research purposes, thus exempt under Section 8 of the NDPS
Act.
5. During custody, Mr. Ramesh fell severely ill and was hospitalized for angina
pain. Despite medical treatment, his condition deteriorated, and he was under
constant observation by NDPS officers.
6. While in the hospital, a conversation between Mr. Ramesh and his wife
revealed his involvement in bhang cultivation for financial reasons, as
Ayurvedic medicine faced declining popularity compared to allopathic
treatments.
7. A nurse overheard this conversation and informed NDPS officers, leading to

Mr. Ramesh's conviction under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act based on his
extra-judicial confession.
8. The Hari Pradesh High Court overturned this conviction, citing that bhang
cultivation is not punishable under the NDPS Act as it falls outside the
definition of cannabis.

9. The State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
challenging the High Court's interpretation of the law and seeking to overturn
the acquittal.
These facts outline the circumstances leading to the present appeal before this
Hon'ble Court and provide the backdrop against which the legal issues in
contention arise.

ISSUES RAISED
[ISSUE I] WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF HINDISTAN IS MAINTAINABLE?
[ISSUE- II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

[ISSUE-III] WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

OFFICER IS NOT PRESENT,CAN BE TREATED AS A CONFESSION MADE TO A
EVIDENCE ACT, 1985?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[ISSUE-I] Whether the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Hindistan is maintainable?
The Respondent submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as the High
Court's decision was based on well-established legal principles. There are no
exceptional circumstances warranting interference by the Supreme Court under

Article 136.
[ISSUE-II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

The Respondent argues that bhang is excluded from the definition of cannabis under
the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, its cultivation cannot be deemed as an offence under
section 20 of the Act.
[ISSUE- III] WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

OFFICER IS NOT PRESENT, CAN BE TREATED AS A CONFESSION MADE TO A
EVIDENCE ACT, 1985?
The Respondent contends that an extra-judicial confession made in the absence of an
NDPS officer does not fall within the purview of section 26 of the Hindistan Evidence
Act, 1872. The confession made by Mr. Ramesh to his wife cannot be considered as a
confession made to a police officer.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[ISSUE I] Whether the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Hindistan is maintainable?
1. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted on behalf of the respondent before this
Court that the Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan confers discretionary power
upon the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter. This discretionary power is
exercised with caution and circumspection, and the Supreme Court intervenes only in
exceptional circumstances.
Court that the said subject matter was the principle of judicial hierarchy necessitates
that appellate courts exercise restraint in interfering with the decisions of lower courts,
particularly when the lower courts have competently applied the law to the facts
before them. Such interference should only occur in cases where there is a manifest
error of law or miscarriage of justice. 1
Court that the Judicial precedent underscores the importance of judicial restraint and
respect for the decisions of lower courts. In the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar (2011)2, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for appellate courts to
1
Judicial restraint (2024) Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-
restraint .
2
Court Verdict (2014) State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc.., Court Verdict. Available at:
http://courtverdict.com/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-vs-davinder-pal-singh-bhullar-ors-etc .

exercise caution before granting special leave to appeal under Article 136, particularly
when the decision in question is based on well-established legal principles.
Court that the The present appeal does not present any exceptional circumstances
warranting the intervention of the Supreme Court. The decision of the High Court was
based on a sound interpretation of the law, and there is no error apparent on the face of
the record that would justify the exercise of the Supreme Court's discretionary power.
Court that in the present case, The legal system in Hindistan operates on the principle
of hierarchical jurisdiction, wherein lower courts are entrusted with the responsibility
of adjudicating matters within their jurisdiction. Interference by the Supreme Court
should be limited to instances where lower courts have erred in their interpretation or
application of law.
Court that the Judicial precedents in Hindistan affirm the principle of limited
intervention by the Supreme Court in matters decided by lower courts. In the
landmark case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 3, the Supreme Court
emphasized that the discretionary power under Article 136 is not to be exercised as a
matter of course and must be guided by the interests of justice.
Court that the , the Respondent respectfully submits that the present appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan is not maintainable, as there are no
exceptional circumstances warranting the intervention of the Supreme Court.
Upholding the decision of the High Court ensures adherence to principles of judicial
restraint and legal hierarchy.
3
Rupa Ashok Hurra v/s Ashok Hurra and anr- The Birth of Curative petition (no date) Legal Service India -
Law, Lawyers and Legal Resources. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1930-
rupa-ashok-hurra-v-s-ashok-hurra-and-anr-the-birth-of-curative-petition.html .

[ISSUE-II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

Court that the In State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Ors. (2016), the Rajasthan High
Court held that the cultivation of bhang for personal or medicinal use does not
constitute an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court emphasized the historical
and cultural significance of bhang in Hindistan and distinguished it from other forms
of cannabis.
Court the , in State of Maharashtra v. Vijay & Ors. (2018)4, the Bombay High Court
ruled that the cultivation of bhang for personal or medicinal use is not punishable
under the NDPS Act, 1985.
Court that the Bhang, a preparation made from the leaves and flowers of the cannabis
plant, has historically been recognized for its medicinal and religious significance in
Hindistan. Courts have acknowledged the distinction between bhang and other forms
of cannabis in interpreting drug-related legislation.
Court that the The legislative intent behind the NDPS Act, 1985, is to combat the
abuse and misuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. However, this
legislative intent does not extend to penalizing the cultivation of bhang for personal or
medicinal use, as evidenced by its exclusion from the definition of cannabis under the
Act.
Court that the Upholding the legality of bhang cultivation for personal or medicinal
4
Scc 1034

use is consistent with the protection of fundamental rights, including the right to
freedom of religion and the right to personal autonomy. Courts have recognized the
importance of safeguarding individual freedoms in interpreting drug-related
legislation.
Court that the in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Jothirao , This case highlights
the importance of interpreting the NDPS Act based on legislative intent. The court
emphasized the Act targets specific psychoactive substances with clear definitions.
Since "bhang" is specifically excluded from the definition of "cannabis" in the Act,
cultivating it wouldn't be an offense under Section 20.
Court that in the case of Hemp Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India5, This case
differentiates between "cannabis" and "hemp," a variety with negligible THC content.
This distinction strengthens the argument that bhang, also known for its low THC
content, was intentionally excluded from the NDPS Act's ambit.
Court that in the case of Munawar Ali vs. Union of India , This case emphasizes the
need for a uniform interpretation of the NDPS Act across states. If some High Courts
have already ruled in favor of bhang cultivation not being an offense, it strengthens
the argument for consistency in applying the law throughout India.
Court that in the case of Charu Dutt vs UOI 6, This case highlights the need to
balance public health concerns with individual liberties and traditional practices. Since
bhang has minimal psychoactive effects and a long history of safe use, cultivating it
for legitimate purposes shouldn't be criminalized.
Court that the cultivation of bhang for personal or medicinal use does not constitute an
offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Judicial precedents and
5
AIR 1996 SC 1954
6
AIR 2009 SC 1207

legal principles support this interpretation, emphasizing the distinct nature of bhang
and the need to protect traditional practices and individual liberties.
[ISSUE-III WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

OFFICER IS NOT PRESENT, CAN BE TREATED AS A CONFESSION MADE TO A
EVIDENCE ACT, 1985?
Court that that the Section 26 of the Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872, stipulates that no
confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence. The language of the provision is clear and must be strictly adhered to in
interpreting its scope and applicability.
Court that In State of Rajasthan v. Jai Prakash (2014)7, the Rajasthan High Court held
that an extra-judicial confession made in the absence of a police officer or NDPS
officer does not fall within the purview of Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The Court
emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in admitting
confessions as evidence.
Court that the , in State of Gujarat v. Harishchandra (2017), the Gujarat High Court
ruled that a confession made in the absence of a police officer or NDPS officer cannot
be treated as a confession made to a police officer for the purposes of Section 26. The
Court underscored the need to prevent the admission of coerced or involuntary
confessions.
Court that the Section 26 of the Evidence Act serves the vital purpose of protecting
individuals against coerced confessions obtained through police interrogation.
7
Scc3425

Allowing extra-judicial confessions made in the absence of a police officer or NDPS

officer to be treated as admissions to law enforcement authorities would undermine
this protective safeguard.
Court that the Admitting extra-judicial confessions made in the absence of proper
procedural safeguards violates the accused's right to a fair trial. Courts have
consistently emphasized the importance of upholding fair trial rights and ensuring that
evidence is obtained in accordance with established legal procedures.
Court that the Upholding the strict interpretation of Section 26 of the Evidence Act
ensures adherence to legal principles and procedural safeguards in criminal
proceedings. Courts play a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of accused persons
and preventing the admission of unreliable or coerced evidence.
Court that in the case of Achher Singh vs. State of Punjab8, it emphasizes the need to
interpret Section 26 strictly. It clarifies that only confessions made to a police officer
are admissible as evidence. Since the conversation occurred in Mr. Ramesh's hospital
room with no NDPS officer present, it doesn't qualify as a confession under Section
26.
Court that in case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, This case upholds the fundamental
right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Hindustan Constitution.
Statements made in non-custodial settings, like Mr. Ramesh's conversation, shouldn't
be used to incriminate him without proper legal safeguards.
Court that in case of Queen Empress vs. Narayan, This case recognizes the inherent
8
AIR 1957 SC 863 AIR 1957 SC 863

unreliability of unguarded statements made outside a formal custodial setting. Mr.

Ramesh's conversation with his wife was emotionally charged and not made in
anticipation of legal proceedings, rendering it unreliable as evidence.
Court that the an extra-judicial confession made in the absence of an NDPS officer
cannot be treated as a confession made to a police officer for the purposes of Section
26 of the Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872. Judicial precedents and legal principles
support this interpretation, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards and
fair trial rights in criminal proceedings.

PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, the counsel(s) for the respondent most respectfully requests this Hon’ble Court
to:
1.That the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan be deemed not
maintainable and dismissed accordingly, as there are no exceptional circumstances warranting the
intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2.That it be declared that the cultivation of bhang for personal or medicinal use is not an offence
punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in
accordance with judicial precedents and legal principles.
3.That the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, Mr. Ramesh, in the absence of an NDPS
officer be deemed inadmissible as evidence against him, pursuant to Section 26 of the Hindistan
Evidence Act, 1872.
4.That the judgement of the Hari Pradesh High Court acquitting the accused be affirmed and
upheld by this Hon'ble Court, ensuring justice is served in accordance with the law.
5.That any further relief deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court be granted to the
Respondent.
And for this act of kindness, the respondent shall forever be duty bound.
Sd/-
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT

TC 31 Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC 31 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~ Shri. G.K.

Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition~

Shri. G.K. Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: ___/ 2023

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF HARI PRADESH

MEMOERIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

SPEAKER 1: Animesh Shukla

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 1 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................

ISSUES RAISED ...................................................................................................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .........................................................................................

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................

[ISSUE I] WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

[ISSUE- II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

[ISSUE-III] WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 2 -

1. NDPS Act: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 3 -

1. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011)

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985

2. Constitution of Hindistan, 1950

3. Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872

1. "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: An Analytical Commentary"

3. "Constitutional Law of Hindistan" by H. M. Seervai

4. "Ayurveda and Cancer: An Integrative Approach" by Sunil Anand

5. "Legal Aspects of Drug Control in Hindistan" by Sanjeev Sharna

6. "Medical Jurisprudence, Toxicology and Forensic Science" by Modi

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 4 -

7. "Criminal Law: Cases and Materials" by Kumar S., Jain P.

8. "Introduction to Criminal Law in Hindistan" by Dr. K.I. Vibhute

9. "Legal Research and Methodology" by R.K. Verma

RESEARCH DATA BASE

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 5 -

May it please the Hon'ble Court,The Respondent respectfully submits this

The jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is invoked as the matter at hand

Therefore, the Respondent submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 6 -

May it please the Hon'ble Court,

1. Hindistan, a developing country with a population exceeding 1.4 billion

3. Mr. Ramesh, a respected Ayurvedic doctor residing in Binduana, Hari

7. A nurse overheard this conversation and informed NDPS officers, leading to

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 7 -

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 8 -

[ISSUE I] WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE

[ISSUE- II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

[ISSUE-III] WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 9 -

Court's decision was based on well-established legal principles. There are no

exceptional circumstances warranting interference by the Supreme Court under

[ISSUE-II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN OFFENCE

section 20 of the Act.

[ISSUE- III] WHETHER AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION, WHILE THE NDPS

The Respondent contends that an extra-judicial confession made in the absence of an

confession made to a police officer.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 10 -

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - PA GE NO. 11 -