TC 31 Petitioner

TC-31
Shri. G.K. Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition~
TC-31
7th Arguendo UILS National Law Fest, 2024
~ Shri. G.K. Chatrath Memorial National Moot Court Competition~
BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: ___/ 2023
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
In Matter of
STATE OF HARI PRADESH
VERSUS
MR. RAMESH
Memorial on behalf of Appellant
SPEAKER 1: Animesh Shukla

SPEAKER 2: Muskan Rafiq
RESEARCHER: Vanshika Bhalwal
Page 1 of 19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

TC-31
Table of Content
Table of Content ......................................................................................................................... 2
List of Abbreviation ................................................................................................................... 3
Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................... 3
Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 5
Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................... 7
Statement of Issue ...................................................................................................................... 8
Summary of Argument ............................................................................................................... 9
Argument in Advance .............................................................................................................. 11
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 19
1. [ISSUE I] WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER

ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HINDISTAN IS
MAINTAINABLE?
2. [ISSUE- II] WHETHER THE CULTIVATION OF BHANG IS AN
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE NDPS
ACT, 1985?
3. [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…………………………………………………………………………
…
Page 2 of 19

TC-31
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
Page 3 of 19

TC-31
15. SLP: Special Leave Petition (in the context of legal appeals)
Index Of Authorities
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
Certainly, here's an index of the legal authorities you provided:
1. Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar

2. Punjab v. Balbir Singh [AIR 2010 SC 3471]
3. Madhya Pradesh v. Pyarelal [AIR 1967 SC 1234]
4. Sushil Sharma S/o Late Kharananda Sharma v. State of Sikkim
5. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi v. State of Punjab [CRM No.M- 13140]
6. Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)
7. State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000)
8. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2011)
9. Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2015)
10. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2018)
Websites
1. http://www.findlaw.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx
4. http://www.scconline.com
Page 4 of 19

TC-31
5. https://advance.lexis.com
Statutes:
1. Indian Evidence Act 1872
2. Constitution of India 1949
3. Notification of Central Govt related to NDPS
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
Page 5 of 19

TC-31
Statement of Jurisdiction
The Appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The leave has been granted by this Hon’ble Court in all the the four
issues and the issues are are to be heard by this Hon’ble Court. The Article 136 of the
Constitution of Kindia read as under:
“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 judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India
2. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.
Appellant humbly submits that this court has the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the matter
and adjudicate accordingly.
Page 6 of 19

TC-31
Statement of facts
1. Mr. Ramesh, a 40-year-old Ayurvedic doctor residing in Binduana, Hari Pradesh, was
arrested on June 2, 2022, by NDPS officers for cultivating bhang without government
authorization on a one-hectare area at his residence.
2. Ramesh asserted that the cultivation was for cancer research and, therefore, exempted
under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, highlighting the medicinal benefits of bhang.
3. While in custody, Ramesh fell severely ill, leading to admission to a city hospital. An
NDPS officer guarded his ward due to the nature of the accusations.
4. Ramesh’s wife visited him in the hospital, leading to a revelation of his involvement in
cultivating bhang for financial reasons, as Ayurvedic medicine demand declined, and he
sought alternative income sources.
5. The nurse overheard this confession, informing the NDPS officer, resulting in a legal
case filed under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act.
6. The Special Court convicted Ramesh, sentencing him to 7 years of rigorous
imprisonment and a Rs. 5 lakh fine.
7. The Hari Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction, asserting that bhang cultivation
is not an offense under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
8. The State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the High
Court’s interpretation, emphasizing the unsettled legal position on bhang cultivation.
9. Respondents argue against interference, citing the settled law that bhang cultivation is
not an offense and question the admissibility of Ramesh’s confession in custody under
Section 26 of the Hindistan Evidence Act, 1872.
Page 7 of 19

TC-31
Statement of Issue
I. Whether the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of

Hindistan Is maintainable?
II. Whether the cultivation of bhang is an offence punishable under
section 20 of. The NDPS Act, 1985?
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?
Page 8 of 19

TC-31
Summary Of Argument
I. Whether the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan Is
maintainable?
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India, any person, aggrieved by any order or decision of any court in India can approach
the Supreme Court through a Petition for Special Leave. In the instant case, the Bombay
High Court has gravely erred in not exercising its inherent jurisdiction as provided under
the Civil Procedure Code.
Settled law not established: The appellant argue that the legal position of bhang
cultivation is not settled as different High Courts have expressed conflicting views. This
creates legal uncertainty and justifies the Supreme Court’s intervention to provide clarity
and uniformity.
II. Whether the cultivation of bhang is an offence punishable under section 20 of.
The NDPS Act, 1985?
India that Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act
pertains to the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. It
outlines the penalties for cultivating, producing, manufacturing, possessing, selling,
purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing inter-State, exporting
inter-State, importing into India, exporting from India, or transhipment of cannabis or its
products..
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
I. It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India that No, an extra-judicial confession made to
someone other than an NDPS officer while the NDPS officer is not present
Page 9 of 19

TC-31
wouldn’t be treated as a confession under Section 26 of the Hindistan

Evidence Act, 1985. Here’s why: Section 26 specifically deals with
confessions made by an accused “whilst he is in the custody of a police-
officer”.NDPS officers are considered police officers under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.However, the confession being
extra-judicial means it wasn’t made in police custody. Since the NDPS
officer wasn’t present either, it wouldn’t fall under the purview of Section
26.This extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and proven in court, could
still be considered as evidence under other sections of the Evidence
Act.Here’s a breakdown of the relevant points:Extra-judicial confession:
Made outside of police custody. Section 26: Deals with confessions made
in police custody.NDPS officer as police officer: NDPS officers have
police officer status under the NDPS Act.Therefore, the confession
wouldn’t be barred under Section 26, but its admissibility would depend
on other legal considerations
Page 10 of 19

TC-31
Argument in Advance
I. Whether the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of Hindistan Is
maintainable?
The Appellant has Locus Standi to approach this Hon’ble Court
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that under Article 136 empowers the Supreme
Court to grant in discretion Special leave to Appeal From any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed Or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India. It is humbly submitted that powers Under Article 136 can be
exercised against any kind of judgement or order which is causing Injustice to any party, and
to serve the need, the power under Article 136 is unfettered1
1 Scope of powers of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
The power has been held to be plenary, limitless5, adjunctive and unassailable6 The
Supreme Court can use the powers under Article 136 to impart justice and remedy any
Injustice7 The Supreme Court with regard to scope of Article 136 held that it is a
residual Power which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgement or
order of any court Or tribunal in India in its discretion In Ganga Kumar v. State of
Bihar1, the Supreme Court has held that it is open to the Supreme Court to interfere with
the findings fact by the High Court if the High Court has Acted perversely or otherwise
improperly. Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court to hear the instant
matter because the High Court has been gravely wrong in not exercising its inherent
jurisdiction in the instant Matter. The instant petition satisfies all grounds required for
an appeal under Article 136 It is humbly submitted that if special leave is granted and
the same is restricted to a Particular question, the Court is not constrained in any manner
to restrict itself to hearing only Those matters10, insofar as an opportunity of being
heard is giving to the opposite party also11 Hence, it is submitted that this Hon’ble
1
AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3123
Page 11 of 19

TC-31
Court can dwell into all matters, including question of Fact and decide this matter on
merits grant justice.
It is humbly submitted that Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court of India to
entertain petitions for special leave to appeal against judgments, decrees,
determinations, sentences, or orders passed by any court or tribunal in the
country.expand_more However, the maintainability of a petition under Article 136
hinges on specific criteria..
(a) The Supreme Court, as the apex court, prioritizes cases raising substantial
issues of general importance with wide-ranging legal implications. These
issues transcend individual disputes and have a bearing on the interpretation
of law or its application in similar future cases.
(b) In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh2, the Supreme Court interpreted the
meaning of “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act, impacting numerous
future cases.
(c) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pyarelal3 showcases the court’s intervention

when a High Court misinterpreted a criminal law provision, resulting in a
miscarriage of justice.
Therefore It is humbly submitted that Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court of
India with special leave to appeal:
(d) It doesn't grant an automatic right of appeal to parties in disputes.
(e) The Supreme Court has discretionary power to interfere in exceptional

cases where it deems necessary.
Factors influencing the maintainability of an appeal under Article 136:
I. Severity of injustice: The court considers if there has been gross

injustice caused by the lower court's order or judgment.
2
[AIR 2010 SC 3471]
3
[AIR 1967 SC 1234]
Page 12 of 19

TC-31
II. Question of law of general importance: The appeal might be entertained if it

raises a significant legal question that has broader implications beyond the
specific case.
III. Public interest: If the case involves matters of public interest, the court might
be more inclined to hear the appeal.
Therefore, simply stating that an appeal under Article 136 is maintainable is not
accurate. Each case is evaluated based on its specific merits and the factors
mentioned above.
If you're considering filing an appeal under Article 136, it's essential to consult with a
legal professional who can thoroughly assess your case and advise you on the
likelihood of the court granting leave to appeal.
II. Whether the cultivation of bhang is an offence punishable under section 20 of.
The NDPS Act, 1985?
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India . In The legal case of Sushil Sharma S/o Late Kharananda Sharma VS State of
Sikkim4 revolves around the application of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the crucial role played by the determination
and establishment of the quantity of cannabis in the possession of the accused. Section
20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act specifically addresses situations where an individual is
4
AIRONLINE 2018 SK 120
Page 13 of 19

TC-31
found in possession of cannabis in a commercial quantity. The categorization of the

offense under this section carries more severe penalties compared to other provisions
of the Act. The term "commercial quantity" is defined within the NDPS Act and varies for
different narcotic substances. However, the legal landscape provides flexibility in the
charges based on the quantity involved. If the quantity of cannabis possessed by the
individual is below the commercial threshold, the prosecution may opt for charges
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) instead. This distinction in subsections allows for a nuanced
approach in sentencing, with different penalties prescribed for varying quantities of the
narcotic substance. In essence, the prosecution's success in securing a conviction
under Section 20 of the NDPS Act is contingent upon its ability to establish, with
precision, the quantity of cannabis in the possession of the accused. This involves
presenting credible evidence, which may include documentation, expert testimony, or
scientific analysis, to support the claim of the specified quantity. The determination of
the quantity is pivotal not only for accurately categorizing the offense but also for
ensuring that the legal consequences align with the severity of the violation. The process
acts as a safeguard against disproportionate punishments and emphasizes the need for
a fair and objective assessment of the evidence. As the case unfolds, the defense may
challenge the prosecution's evidence, questioning the methods used for measurement
or the reliability of the data presented. Conversely, the prosecution must demonstrate
the integrity of its procedures and the accuracy of its findings to establish the guilt of the
accused under the chosen section of the NDPS Act.
conclusion, the detailed examination of Sushil Sharma S/o Late Kharananda Sharma
VS State of Sikkim5 underscores the intricate legal considerations surrounding drug
offenses, particularly the significance of determining and establishing the quantity of
cannabis. The interplay between Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) allows for a
nuanced approach to sentencing based on the quantity involved, highlighting the need
for a meticulous and fair legal process in addressing such cases.
II.I Cultivation of Cannabis for Medical and Scientific purpose require 1 hectare?
India. In certain legislative frameworks, such as Acts or statutes, the specific quantities
5
AIRONLINE 2018 SK 120
Page 14 of 19

TC-31
related to commercial, small, and intermediate activities are not explicitly defined within the
text of the Act. Instead, the legislative authority is granted to the Central Government to
determine and specify these quantities through official notifications published in the Official
Gazette.
This delegation of authority provides flexibility for the government to adapt to changing
circumstances, market conditions, or other relevant factors. The process typically involves
the Central Government issuing notifications that outline the specific quantities applicable
to commercial, small, and intermediate activities.
These notifications, once published in the Official Gazette, become legally binding and
serve as the operative guidelines for the relevant quantities within the scope of the Act.
This approach allows for a dynamic and adaptable regulatory framework, as the Central
Government can adjust the quantities as needed without the need for frequent amendments
to the primary legislation.
It's important for stakeholders and the public to stay informed about these notifications, as
they play a crucial role in defining the operational parameters and compliance
requirements for entities falling under the purview of the Act.
This in the case o f[Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi VS State of Punjab]6 It is important to

note that the specific quantities for commercial, small, and intermediate quantities are not
provided in the Act itself. Instead, the Central Government has the authority to specify
these quantities through notifications in the Official Gazette
Therefore In the Notification of Govt of India specifically lays that more than 1 kg is
consider as a commercial quantity
6
CRM No.M- 13140
Page 15 of 19

TC-31
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
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner contends that the
confession made by the accused, Mr. Ramesh, to his wife in the absence of the NDPS
officer should not be deemed admissible as evidence under Section 26 of the Hindistan
Evidence Act, 1872. The foundational principle of justice demands adherence to
procedural fairness, especially in matters concerning criminal proceedings.
The case before this court revolves around the cultivation of bhang by Mr. Ramesh, a
reputed Ayurvedic doctor, without the requisite authorization under the NDPS Act, 1985.
Despite his contentions that the cultivation was for medical research purposes, he was
accused of violating the provisions of the Act. While hospitalized and under the custody
of NDPS officers, Mr. Ramesh confessed to his involvement in the cultivation of bhang to
his wife during a moment of emotional vulnerability. This confession, overheard by a
nurse and subsequently disclosed to the NDPS officer, became a crucial piece of evidence
leading to his conviction by the Special Court under Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act.
In addressing the legal issue at hand, it's imperative to consider the context of the NDPS
Act, 1985, which aims to curb drug abuse and trafficking in Hindistan. However, in
interpreting its provisions, one must also uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
The contention put forth by the respondents, that the confession made in the absence of
the NDPS officer is inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, deserves careful
examination. Section 26 stipulates that confessions made to police officers are admissible
under certain circumstances. However, it's essential to note that the absence of the NDPS
officer does not automatically render the confession inadmissible, especially considering
the unique circumstances of this case.
Page 16 of 19

TC-31
The case law provides guidance in interpreting the admissibility of confessions in similar
situations. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)7, the Supreme Court emphasized
the necessity of the confession being made to a police officer specifically assigned to the
case for it to be admissible. This principle underscores the importance of the connection
between the confession and the ongoing investigation.
Furthermore, in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000)8, the court highlighted the

significance of the presence of the designated NDPS officer during confessions related to
drug offenses. However, it's crucial to recognize that the primary objective of such
presence is to ensure procedural fairness and prevent coercion, rather than to invalidate
confessions made in other contexts.
Moreover, the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2011) 9 clarified that
confessions made to persons other than police officers do not fall under the purview of
Section 26 of the Evidence Act. However, in the present case, the confession was
inadvertently disclosed in the presence of the nurse, who subsequently informed the
NDPS officer, thereby establishing a link to law enforcement authorities.
Additionally, in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2015)10, the court

reaffirmed the necessity of the presence of the designated NDPS officer during the
recording of confessions related to narcotics offenses. However, it's essential to recognize
that the absence of the officer in this instance was due to Mr. Ramesh's hospitalization
and not a deliberate evasion of legal procedures.
7
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172
8
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 992-993 of 1999
9
10
Page 17 of 19

TC-31
Furthermore, in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2018)11, the court reiterated that for a
confession to be admissible under Section 26, it must be made to a police officer
authorized to investigate the particular offense. However, the circumstances surrounding
Mr. Ramesh's confession, including his vulnerable state and the inadvertent disclosure to
his wife, warrant a nuanced consideration.
Given the unique circumstances, the involuntary nature of the confession, and the legal
precedents cited, we respectfully urge the Hon'ble Supreme Court to uphold the
judgement of the High Court acquitting Mr. Ramesh. The confession made in the absence
of an NDPS officer does not meet the criteria for admissibility under Section 26 of the
Evidence Act.
11
Page 18 of 19

TC-31
Prayer
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, AUTHORITIES CITED AND

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO:
1) Hon’ble Court may dismiss the order passed by the High Court .
2) Pass any order deemed fit.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully Submitted. AND FOR THIS ACT OF
KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
Date:
Place:
Page 19 of 19

TC 31 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-31

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

7th Arguendo UILS National Law Fest, 2024

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

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.: ___/ 2023

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Memorial on behalf of Appellant

SPEAKER 1: Animesh Shukla

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

Table of Content ......................................................................................................................... 2

List of Abbreviation ................................................................................................................... 3

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................... 7

Statement of Issue ...................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of Argument ............................................................................................................... 9

Argument in Advance .............................................................................................................. 11

1. [ISSUE I] WHETHER THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

1. NDPS Act: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

1. Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

1. Indian Evidence Act 1872

2. Constitution of India 1949

3. Notification of Central Govt related to NDPS

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

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

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

“SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

I. Whether the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

wouldn’t be treated as a confession under Section 26 of the Hindistan

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

The Appellant has Locus Standi to approach this Hon’ble Court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

(c) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pyarelal3 showcases the court’s intervention

(d) It doesn't grant an automatic right of appeal to parties in disputes.

(e) The Supreme Court has discretionary power to interfere in exceptional

Factors influencing the maintainability of an appeal under Article 136:

I. Severity of injustice: The court considers if there has been gross

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

II. Question of law of general importance: The appeal might be entertained if it

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

found in possession of cannabis in a commercial quantity. The categorization of the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

This in the case o f[Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi VS State of Punjab]6 It is important to

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

Furthermore, in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000)8, the court highlighted the

Additionally, in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2015)10, the court

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF Petitioner

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, AUTHORITIES CITED AND