Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Madras: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO ..OF 2018 in CC - No:1/2013

1ST MMBA STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018
TEAM CODE: I
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

MADRAS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………..OF 2018
In CC.No:1/2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. NAVEEN ABHRAHAM ……….APPELLANT 1

Mr. GOPINATH ……….APPELLANT 2
Mr. ASHTA ……….APPELLANT 3
V.
STATE
REPRESENTED BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER ………..RESPONDENT
AB NAGAR POLICE STATION, RICHARD TOWN
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO'S
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
5. ISSUES RAISED 10
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
7. ADVANCED ARGUMENTS 13
8. PRAYER 20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIO FULL FORM

N
Dr Doctor
Mr Mister
I.O Investigating Officer
CC Criminal case
Hon’ble Honourable
NDPS Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
IPC Indian Penal Code
DW Defence Witness
AIR All India Report
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus
& And
P&H Punjab and Haryana
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S.No. Book Name

1 K.P. Kataria, Law Relating to Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in India (3rd
edition, Orient Publishing Co., New Delhi 2010)
2 Dr. N. V. Paranjape, The Code of Criminal Procedure (Fifth Edition Central Law Agency)
3 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian penal code, (Revised by KT Thomas and MA Rashid), 33rd
edition of 2016.

4 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, (Revised by BM Prasad and Manish
Mohan), 20th Edition 2016.
5 P.M. Bakshi, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (Revised by Shri
Shriniwas Gupta), 3rd edition, 2014.
6 Dr. V. Krishnamachari & Surender K. Gogia, Law of Evidence (as amended by Act No. 13 of
2013), 7th edition Reprint 2017.
7 Chief Justice M Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence, 11 Th edition.
8 Dr. V Nageswara Rao, The Indian Evidence Act, 2nd Edition 2015.
9 Volume 5, RP Kathuria, Supreme court on criminal law (1950-2008),7 th edition
STATUTES REFERRED:
S. No Name of the Statute
1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
WEBLINKS REFERRED :
S. No Web link

1 https://indiankanoon.org/
2. http://www.livelaw.in/
3. http://www.cbn.nic.in/html/ndpsact1985.
4. http://www.scconline.com/WebEdition.aspx
CASES REFERRED:
S.N Name of the cases

O
1. Abdul Majid Abdul hak ansari v. State of Gujarat 2004 SCC (Cr) 1068:2003 (10)SCC 198:
2004 SCC (Cr) 1068
2. Alijan v. State of Maharastra (1981)
3. Basheer v. State of Kerala 2004 SCC(Cr) 1107: (2004) 3 SCC 609: (2004) 1 JCC 504: Cr LJ
1418: (2004) 2 crimes 197
4. Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana SC Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2006

5. Bhavnagar University v. Palitan Sugar Mills, 2002 AIR SCW LC 934

6. Chank Bahadur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2007 Cri LJ 4454 (HP)
7. Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs v. State of M.P SC Criminal Appeal No.885/2002
8. Jitendra Nath Mangia v. State of Bihar and Anr, 2001 (1) East Cri C 324(Jhr).
9. Mohammed Akhtar v. state of M.P., 1996 Cri LJ 3779 (MP)
10. Nathubhai Barbarhai Patel v. State of Maharastra, 2001 Cri LJ 536 (Bom)
11. Raj Kumar krawal vs. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 45: (1990) 2 SCC 409
12. Ramkant Gopal Sharan Shahu v. state of Gujarat, 2005 Cri LJ 1131 (Guj)
13. Sasi v. State of kerala, (2000) 10 SCC 360 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1080:2001 (2) EFR 222 (SC)
14. Shakhawat khan v. State of M.P., 1998(1) EFR 342 : 1998 (2) JIC 649 (MP)
15. State of Maharastra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, AIR 1982
16. Vasudeo kulkarni vs. Surya kant Bhatt AIR 1993
17. Wessel Van Beelan v. State of Goa, 2000 (1) Cri LJ 271 at 282: 2000 (2) EFR 381: 1999 (5)
Bom CR 575 (Bom) (panjim branch)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants approach the Hon’ble High Court of Madras under Section 36B 1 of NDPS
Act, 1985 and 374(3)2of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with appeal
against conviction.
1
S.36-B.The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXIX
and XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the
local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the High Court
22.
S.374. Appeals from convictions.
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may
appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held
by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him
or against any other person convicted at the same trial; may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-§ (2), any person,-

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Union of Indigo is a democratic country in which legislation was proposed to legalize and
start the regulated supply of traditional intoxicants in the country. When the bill was placed
before Rajya Sabha, it appointed three members committee headed by Dr. Naveen to submit a
report about viability, risks and safeguards of the proposed legislation.
Dr. Naveen is an accomplished doctor with 32 years of active practice in general medicine and
holds 12 patents to his name. Siddarth, classmate of Naveen, said that the appellant was regular
consumer of marijuana and it was ironic that the government has appointed him in the
committee. There were certain media reports claiming that Siddhartha’s name was suggested to
head the committee. Naveen posted a video in Face book stating that he frequently consumes
marijuana. The research set up was made ready to commence their works.
A complaint was filed by Dr.Naveen as he found that his laptop missing, when he entered his
room. The I.O Mr. Jaywant started his investigation. During his investigation, Mrs. Harini who
was the research assistant of Dr.Naveen claims to have witnessed the crime. It was found that
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first
class or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under § 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under § 360 by any
Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

Gopinath, research analyst of Dr.Naveen was last seen with laptop. While custody, Gopinath
informed that the laptop was in my house from which 5 packets of 55g of marijuana was found.
The sample was sent to forensic lab.
Jaywant requested Avinash, who was the Secretary in ministry of health and family welfare
department to help him in this case. When Dr.Naveen replied Avinash that all his stash has been
confiscated, Jaywant suddenly entered and took him into custody. During investigation, he
accepts that he consumes marijuana and also informed him about his personal diary.
Ms.X appeared in a show hosted by Arya gowsami & stated that she had been harassed by
Dr.Naveen to sell illegal contraband but she doesn’t want to pursue a case against him. Gopinath
filed a complaint against Dr.Naveen that even he was forced to act as a delivery boy by him. As
stated by Dr.Naveen and Mr.Harsha; certain documents were recovered from gopinath’s
computer.
The personal diary of Dr.Naveen mentioned that he regularly sold marijuana including some
given for research. When Ashta was arrived police station he states that from time to time he
purchased small quantities of marijuana from Dr.Naveen. Mr. Jaywant completed the
investigation and the charge sheets were filed in both the cases, viz. (1) CC No.1/2013- Theft of
Laptop against Gopinath and (2) CC NO:2/2013- Extortion against Dr.Naveen.
When cases were clubbed and sent for joint trial by the Sessions judge, all prosecution witness
including Mr. X and journalist gave their statements. Mr. Jaywant breaks during his cross-
examination and confesses that he had setup Mr. Avinash as his witness. The DW No: 1
Mr.Shreyas examined himself as a witness and revealed for the first time that he regularly drop
off the narcotic substances in commercial quantities to Mr. Ashta.
On 29.12.2017, the trial court in CC No: 1, convicted all the three accused and CC No:2/2013,
Dr.Naveen was convicted for 3 years. In the meantime, the NDPS Amendment Act, 2017 was
enacted with effect from 29.12.2017 which legalized the possession and consumption of
Marijuana. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions judge, all the three accused preferred appeal
the high court and Dr.Naveen didn’t file appeal against the order in CC NO: 2/2013.This Appeal
has been listed for hearing before the Hon’ble division bench of Madras High Court.

ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE-I
WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE?
ISSUE-II
WHETHER THE AMENDMENT TO THE NDPS ACT HAS ANY IMPLICATIONS
ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CC.NO.1/2013?
ISSUE-III
WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANTS IN CC.NO.1/2013 IS
SUSTAINABLE?
ISSUE-IV

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE

AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT
IN RELYING UPON THE POLICE REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICER?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE-I
It is submitted that there is no question of law which is more essential for filing an appeal in
the higher court. The trial court was correct in all of its proceedings on relying upon the
investigating report and the evidences. Thus, it is proved that the acts of the appellants are
illegal. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable.
ISSUE-II

It is submitted that, according to criminal jurisprudence, the criminal law does not have
retrospective effect. A person can be punished only according to a law prevailing at the time
of commission of offence. The purpose of the NDPS Act is speedy trial, so if the amendment
is considered in the 11th hour i.e, on the date of final judgement. The trial process will
misdirect the very purpose of the Act. Thus, the amendment Act has no implications on the
findings of the trial court.
ISSUE-III
SUSTAINABLE?
It is submitted that, the trial court awarded punishment lesser than that deserved by the
appellants. If they are acquitted on relying upon the amendment, it becomes double beneficial
to them. The appeal is also not maintainable which makes the conviction of the appellants
sustainable. Thus, the conviction of the appellants in CC.NO:1/2013 is sustainable.
ISSUE-IV

OFFICER?
It is submitted that the trial court was correct in relying upon the investigating report. All the
witnesses reiterated their statements before the Hon’ble court and affirmed it too. The trial court
pronounced the judgement on relying upon the law which was in force during the trial
proceedings. All the evidences given were also admissible. Thus, the trial court has properly
considered the evidence available on record and the trial court was correct in relying upon the
police report filed by the investigating officer.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-I
It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants is not maintainable. There is no
question of law. All the trial proceedings are accurate.
The judgement of the court being conclusive, if the party (prosecution or defence) does not
agree with the findings of the court, he should bring it to the notice of the court then and there

where the facts are being considered, and if he does not raise any objection when the facts and
findings are being recorded by the court, then the judgement given on the basis of those facts
would be conclusive and no appeal can be entertained on the question of facts. 3
In the instant case, no objection was raised by the accused against his conviction by the Court
of Session; therefore the question of justifiability of sentence court cannot be reconsidered by
the appellate court. Hence, the higher Court refused to interfere in the judgement of the court
below.4
In Raj Kumar krawal vs. Union of India5, it was held that since NDPS act is a special law,
the learned Sessions Judge are empowered to take the cognizance of the compliance directly
and proceed to hold the trial even without commitment of the case by the magistrate. Even in
the present case CC. No:1/2013, the learned sessions judge had used the same power. Hence,
the trial court was competent enough to take up the case and pronounce appropriate
judgement. When such a competent Court has taken up an issue, effectively considered the
evidences and gave an appropriate judgement, there is no question of appeal.
Where the reasons given by the trial court are weighty and cogent , the High Court should not
interfere with the findings of the court.6
Where the Appellate Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may
dismiss the appeal by giving reasonable judgement indicating application of its mind to the
question of fact and the law involved in the case.7
Dr. Naveen is the policy maker regarding the research work for welfare of the state, when
such a person itself commits a crime it is more than normal. So, the trial court has looked into
every evidences had statements given against all the three accused with perfect accuration and
has convicted them accordingly without any violation of rule of law. Dr. Naveen did not even
3
State of Maharastra v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak, AIR 1982
4
Bhavnagar University v. Palitan Sugar Mills, 2002 AIR SCW LC 934
5
AIR 1991 SC 45: (1990) 2 SCC 409
6
Vasudeo kulkarni vs. Surya kant Bhatt AIR 1993
7
Alijan v. State of Maharastra (1981)

file any appeal against the order in CC.No:2 /2013(extortion against Dr.Naveen). This shows
that he is impliedly admitting that he had committed the offence of extortion.
Therefore, there is no question of law which is more essential for filing an appeal in the higher
court. The trial court was correct in all of its proceedings on relying upon the investigating
report and the evidences. Thus, it is proved that the acts of the appellants are illegal. Hence,
the appeal is not maintainable.
ISSUE-II
The parliament had two discernible objectives in bringing forth the amendment. These are
evident from the statement of Objects and Reasons and they are: (1) Avoidance of delay in
trials, and (2) Rationalisation of sentence structure. The newly introduced significant and
material changes would affect the trial itself. Application of the amended act to the cases
where the trials had concluded and the appeals were pending on the date of its commencement
could possibly result in the trials being vitiated, leading to retrial, thereby defeating the first
objective of avoiding delay in trials. The accused who had been tried and convicted before the
amendment act could possibly urge, that their trials were not held in accordance with the
amendment act, their trials must be held to be vitiated and they should be tried again in
accordance with the amended provisions of the act. This could be direct and deleterious

consequence of applying the amended provisions of the act to the trials which had concluded.
This would certainly defeat the first objective of avoiding delay n such trials. Here, Parliament
appears to have removed this class this class of cases from the ambit of amendments and
excluded them from the scope of amending so that the appeals could be disposed of
expediously by applying the unamended Act without the possibility of reopening the
concluded trials.8
According to criminal jurisprudence, the criminal law does not have retrospective effect. A
person can be punished only according to a law prevailing at the time of commission of
offence. The purpose of the NDPS Act is speedy trial, so if the amendment is considered in
the 11th hour i.e., on the date of final judgement. The trial process will misdirect the very
purpose of the Act. Thus, the amendment Act has no implications on the findings of the trial
court.
ISSUE-III
SUSTAINABLE?
The Confessional statements and the circumstances of the case proved the charge under NDPS
Act, and there was no commission of any error of law or fact while convicting appellants for
offence punishable under Section 20. Hence, conviction of accused and co-accused under
section 20, held proper.9
If testimony of the police officer (departmental witness) is corroborated by documentary

evidence, conviction can be based on sole testimony of police officer. 10
Conviction can be sustained on reliable evidence of departmental witnesses even independent
witnesseses turn hostile.
8
Basheer v. State of Kerala 2004 SCC(Cr) 1107: (2004) 3 SCC 609: (2004) 1 JCC 504: Cr LJ 1418: (2004) 2 crimes
197
9
Nathubhai Barbarhai Patel v. State of Maharastra, 2001 Cri LJ 536 (Bom)
10
Shakhawat khan v. State of M.P., 1998(1) EFR 342 : 1998 (2) JIC 649 (MP)

There is no legal requirement that a confession should be made to an authorized officer. Any
person can give evidence in a court regarding a confession made by an accused to him. If
such confession was made to a magistrate the law requires the same to be recorded in the
manner prescribed by law. If a confession is made to any other person the court has to
consider whether the evidence of that person can be believed which depends upon the
credibility of the witness giving such evidence in the court.11
The burden to prove that the small quantity was meant for personal consumption and not for
sale or distribution has been shifted on the accused under section 27 of the NDPS Act. Since it
was a plea in defence. In case the accused fails to prove the same, the conviction has to be
recorded under section 20 of the said Act but the sentence to be imposed as provided by
section 27 of the said Act.12
Merely, because the sentence prescribed by the Legislature may extend to 10 years, it should
not ordinarily be awarded by the trial court for the aforesaid period.13
Where the contraband was recovered from the car of the accused, the burden lies on him to
prove beyond reasonable doubt and not merely by preponderance of probability that he was
not having knowledge that the contraband article is kept in his car. Accused convicted. 14The
same applies in this case wherein Mr.Gopinath didn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that he
was not having knowledge that the contraband article was kept inside the laptop and hence he
was liable to be convicted.
When more persons than one are being jointly tried for the same offence, under confession
made by one of such person affecting himself and some other of such person is proved, the
court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as
against the person who makes such confession.15Therefore the act of the Trial Court on relying
upon the confessional statements of the co-accused is relevant.
11
Sasi v. State of kerala, (2000) 10 SCC 360 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1080:2001 (2) EFR 222 (SC)
12
Wessel Van Beelan v. State of Goa, 2000 (1) Cri LJ 271 at 282: 2000 (2) EFR 381: 1999 (5) Bom CR 575 (Bom)
(panjim branch)
13
.Ramkant Gopal Sharan Shahu v. state of Gujarat, 2005 Cri LJ 1131 (Guj)
14
.Mohammed Akhtar v. state of M.P., 1996 Cri LJ 3779 (MP)
15
Section 30 Of Indian Evidence Act

In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the
accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence
for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the Act
charged as an offence in that prosecution. “Culpable mental state” includes intention, motive,
knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. A fact is said to be proved only
when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its
existence is established by a preponderance of probability.16
Exclusive and conscious possession of contraband by the accused has been proved.
Recoveries were effected in a proper manner after taking samples separately and sealing them.
Sample was properly sent to chemical analyst. Report of chemical analyst had supported
prosecution case. Conviction of accused is proper. 17 Even in this case, the possession of
contraband by Mr.Gopinath has been proved effectively and hence the conviction of the same
accused is held to be proper and hence sustainable.
Here, the prosecution witnesses supported the possession of contraband of the accused and the
report of the forensic lab corroborated the same, the conviction of appellant.2 is held to be
sustainable. Where the prosecution witnesses were supporting the recovery of contraband
from the possession of the accused and chemical report also corroborating the prosecution
case, conviction held proper.18
ISSUE-IV
OFFICER?
16
Section 35 of NDPS Act.
17
Chank Bahadur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2007 Cri LJ 4454 (HP)
18
Jitendra Nath Mangia v. State of Bihar and Anr, 2001 (1) East Cri C 324(Jhr).

Mr. Jaywant is an empowered officer under this case under NDPS Act. He has completed
the proceedings within 60 days. Unlike Criminal jurisprudence NDPS Act has reverse burden
of proof. It was on the part of the appellants to prove that they did not have intention and
knowledge to do the crime. It was a failure on the part of the appellants to prove the same in
the trial court. Dr. Naveen had gone appeal only for the case CC.No:1/2013. This clearly
shows that Naveen had done extortion to continue his business transactions. The statement
said by Mr. Gopinath to I.O that he took the laptop to escape from Naveen shows that
Gopinath had previously done business with Dr. Naveen Abhram. The Witness Mr. X in an
interview given the statement genuinely before the journalist and also reiterate her statements
before the court. All the witnesses reiterated their statements before the court. The Statement
given by Dr. Naveen Abraham that he consumed marijuana for the medical purpose cannot be
considered. In medicinal field , narcotics is only for palliative care (as pain killers). Naveen
was just a doctor who practiced general medicine. Naveen had written about every single
transaction in his personal diary. A personal diary is one in which a person writes down his
every personal activities out of interest. So, it is considered to be genuine. Thus, personal
diary can be taken as solid evidence under section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
personal diary is corroborated with Dr. Naveen Abraham’s statement. The D.W. No: 1 had
also examined himself as a witness and gave genuine statement regarding Mr.Ashta.
Though it is true that the prosecution has relied on the prosecution whiteness only, the court
below after considering this evidence have placed reliance on the same and there is no error in
the same. Having considered the evidence the court below rightly held that the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was seized from the person of the
appellant and the same was properly sent to the forensic laboratory for the purpose of analysis
and the same was found to be a contraband article, sale of which is prohibited under the
provision of this act and the appellant was found possessing the said quantity of contraband
for the purpose of sale.19The same was the situation in the present case.
The Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh Vs State of Haryana20, held that evidence of police
witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and
19
Abdul Majid Abdul hak ansari v. State of Gujarat 2004 SCC (Cr) 1068:2003 (10)SCC 198: 2004 SCC (Cr) 1068
20
SC Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2006

interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Rejecting the
contention of the appellant regarding creditworthiness of the police witness, the court held that
there is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent
evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself
give rise to any doubt about the credit worthiness, the court said. The Supreme Court referred
to its own judgement in Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs v. State of M.P.21
Thus, the trial court has properly considered the evidence available on record and whether the
trial court was correct in relying upon the police report filed by the investigating officer.
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras may be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the
appellants in the interest of justice, Equity and good conscience.
21
SC Criminal Appeal No.885/2002

Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Madras: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO ..OF 2018 in CC - No:1/2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Madras: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO ..OF 2018 in CC - No:1/2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Before The Hon'Ble High Court of Madras: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO ..OF 2018 in CC - No:1/2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1ST MMBA STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…………………..OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. NAVEEN ABHRAHAM ……….APPELLANT 1

AB NAGAR POLICE STATION, RICHARD TOWN

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO'S

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

ABBREVIATIO FULL FORM

S.No. Book Name

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

7 Chief Justice M Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence, 11 Th edition.

9 Volume 5, RP Kathuria, Supreme court on criminal law (1950-2008),7 th edition

S. No Name of the Statute

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2. Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

S.N Name of the cases

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

5. Bhavnagar University v. Palitan Sugar Mills, 2002 AIR SCW LC 934

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-§ (2), any person,-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

(b) sentenced under § 325, or

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 12

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 14

If testimony of the police officer (departmental witness) is corroborated by documentary

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 15

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 16

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 17

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 18

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 19

You might also like