S.N.B.P Law College, 3rd LL.B.

Moot Court

S.N.B.P LAW COLLEGE,

3rd INTERNAL MOOT COURT

IN THE HONOURABLE COURT VIDHISHA PRADESH

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 999 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 21OF

COURT OF VIDHISHA PRADESH ACT 1993

AND

TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT AND OTHER PUISNE

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. …………………………………. OF 2021

SHERINA JWOTSIK [ MOTHER ] ---- PLAINTIFF

V/s

JARGON WEAPONRIES LTD. / JOHN SPARK - DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE

Miss. BINCY BABU
ROLL NO.38

(COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT)

 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………II

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………..IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………V

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………VII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………IX

PRAYER OF RELIEF.........................….....................................XIII

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED
1. J N Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India, Central Law Agency, 2014, 51th Edition
2. Dr. R. K. Bangia, Law Of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency, 2018, 24th Edition
3. K.D. Gaur, Text Book On India Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing, 2016, 6 th Edition

WEBSITE REFERRED

1. Https://rightsinfo.org/corporate-manslaughter-work/
2. https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/what-corporate-manslaughter
3. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article-142-and-the-need-for-
judicialrestraint/article18474919.ece
4. https://indiankanoon.org

CASES REFERRED

1. S. Nagraj Versus State Of Karnataka, (1993) Supp (4) Scc 595

2. Vishakha Versus State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 Scc 241
3. R. Versus Prentice, (1993) 3 Wir 937
4. Municipal Corp. Of Delhi Versus Subhagwati, Air (1996) Sc 1750
5. Kurban Hussain Mohhamadali Bangwalla Versus State Of Maharashtra, Air (1965) Sc 1616
6. Haynes Versus Harwood, (1935) 1 K.B. 146
7. Baker Versus T. E. Hopkins And Sons, (1956) 1 Wir 966

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 III

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

Art. ARTICLE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

CONSTI. CONSTITUTION

HON’BLE HONORABLE

ST. STATE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

CORP. CORPORATION

LTD. LIMITED

CO. COMPANY

SUPP. SUPPLEMENTARY

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble court of vidhishwa pradesh has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the
present case by virtue of article 136 of the constitution of vidishwa pradesh.

Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1949

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Vidishwa pradesh 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 Vidishwa pradesh.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 V

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Vidishwa Pradesh which is a country whose legal system is similar as Indian legal system. Jargon weaponries
was public listed well known company for making weapons. Company was also engaged in the project of
manufacturing drones for surveillances.

2. On May, 2015 Company decided to test the drone and scientist strictly advice to first test the drone in jungle
or desert area because the technology used to make that advanced drone was unstable. Company tested the 1 st
3 hours in jungle then immediately Company ordered to use it in the nearby inhabited area.

3. When the drone was being used in the inhabited area due to overcharged cells of drone resulted explosion that
caused fire in a dwelling house and 7 year boy stuck inside the house. Her mother while returning from nearby
store saw house was burning and rushed to save her son but was stopped by people. She was shouting for help
then john spark who was passing nearby rushed to rescue the boy, army jawan also arrived but stopped himself
because there was not enough space to enter into the house.

4. John got afraid and came without completing the rescue of that 7 year old boy. Later army entered into the
house and took out the boy but it was too late and boy died. Doctor said that if boy would have saved earlier,
he would not have been died.

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 VI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the court of vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter
law while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution?

2. Whether the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of
corporate manslaughter?

3. Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the court of Vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter law
while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution?

Yes, the court of vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter law while
exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution.

In the current case there is no existing law as to govern corporate manslaughter hence,

in the absence of legislation and to achieve complete justice court can make law and for
exercising of power laid down in art.999 is necessary as it is stated in art.999 which lays down no
limitations regarding cases and circumstances in which the power is to be exercised and it is left
completely to highest court

Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers neither the rules or procedures nor technicalities of
law can stands in its way and also stated that justice insures that the court can exercise its power
under this article to do complete justice

2. Whether the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of corporate
manslaughter?

No, the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. Has not killed the boy under law of corporate
manslaughter.

Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence, being an act of homicide committed by

a company or organization. In general, a juristic person is in the same position as a natural person,
and may be convicted for committing many offences.

In this case it was strictly advised by the scientist working for jargon weaponries co. Ltd. to first
test the drone in the jungle or desert area So as per the scientist Review the drone was first tested
in Jungle .The drone was used for first 3 hours in jungle and then in the city, after the company’s

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 VIII

senior management got satisfied with the test and there were no any problem arrised they decided
to test in city. Senior management was not aware of such an incident and the incident occurred
naturally

.Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

No. John Spark cannot be held liable for negligence as he willingly placed himself in a
position where harm might result.

In this case john spark voluntarily and willingly came forward to rescue by knowing the amount
of danger. In the case it was very much clear that there were many public but only John Spark
voluntarily rushed to rescue the child but the fire was so dangerous that unfortunately he could
not rescue the child.

John Spark was not aware the presence of Army as army had arrived after he enter the house
and hence he cannot be held liable under section 304A read with section 36 of IPC, 1860

No one could put Life in danger and enact the situation As per his this Fire had already spread
out in whole house due to which he could not complete and rescue the child.

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the court of vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter
law while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution?

Yes, the court of vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter law
while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution.

According to Art. 999 of Consti{read the article of 142 of Indian consti.} court of Vidishwa pradesh
have power to make the law whenever there is a vacuum and so in the interest of justice.

In the case of S. Nagraj versus st. Of Karnataka1 it has been observed that justice is a virtue which
transcends all barriers either the rules or procedures nor technicalities of law can stands in its way
and also stated that justice insures that the court can exercise its power under this article to do
complete justice

Also In the famous case of vishakha versus st. Of Rajasthan2 SC laid down some guidelines while
passing judgement in PIL filed by vishakha over the famous bhawani devi gang rape. Hearing the
appeal the apex court took note of the fact that the civil and penal laws of the time did not adequately
provide for specific protection of women for sexual harassment @ workplace and made it legally
binding to employers to follow guide lines and ensures the prevention of sexual harassment of
women, which has been taken from the CEDAW convention, which lead to the act called sexual
harassment of women at workplace act, 2013

As established by the maxim Salus populi suprema lex esto " which means welfare of the
people should be the supreme law" and from the above mentioned cases it is clear that in the
absence of legislation and to achieve justice court can make law and hence exercising of
power laid down in art.999 is necessary as it is stated in art.999 which lays down no

1
1993 supp(4) scc 595
2
(1997)6 SCC 241

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 X

limitations regarding cases and circumstances in which the power is to be exercised and it is left
completely to the discretion of the highest court.

Also One of the imp. Instance of application by the sc of art. 142 was in the union carbide case
‘BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY’ where court felt a need to deviate from existing law to bring relief
to 100s of persons affected by gas leak and awarded 470 million people of victims and went to
the extent of by saying that to do complete justice sc could even override the laws made by the
parliament by holding that prohibitions or limitations or provisions contend in ordinary law can’t
ipso facto act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional power under 142 and by this
statement the sc placed itself above the law made by parliament or the legislature of the state.

2. Whether the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of corporate
manslaughter?

No, the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. Has not killed the boy under law of corporate
manslaughter.

Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence, being an act of homicide committed by

a company or organization. In general, a juristic person is in the same position as a natural
person, and may be convicted for committing many offences.

In this case it was strictly advised by the scientist working for jargon weaponries co. Ltd. to first
test the drone in the jungle or desert area So as per the scientist Review the drone was first tested
in Jungle .The drone was used for first 3 hours in jungle and then in the city, after the company’s
senior management got satisfied with the test and there were no any problem arrised they
decided to test in city. Senior management was not aware of such an incident and the incident
occurred naturally
Indeed, a corporate body cannot be indicted for offences like treason, murder, bigamy perjury,
rape etc. which can be committed only by human individuals or for offences which are
compulsorily punishable with imprisonment. It would, therefore, have to be held that despite the
generality of the definition of a "person" given in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, a corporate
body or a company shall not be indictable for offences which can be committed only by a human
individual of for offences which must be punished with imprisonment. The offence of cheating
under Section 420, Indian Penal Code "shall be punished with imprisonment" and It is accepted
the position that a company cannot be prosecuted for that offence, mandatorily involving a
punishment of imprisonment. He, therefore, conceded that the reference will have to be accepted
so far as the charge of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code was concerned.

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 XI

barring offences which could only be committed by an individual or which mandatorily entailed
punishments of imprisonment, a company or a corporate body was indiclable for all other
offences involving mens rea on the basis that the mens rea of the authorized agents or servants,
who purport to act for it could be attributed to the company. According to him, the complainant
was also prosecuting the company for alleged offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest
misappropriation of property under Sections 406 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code, in the
alternative, and these offences did not prescribe a compulsory punishment of imprisonment and,
therefore, the Magistrate ought to be directed to proceed against the company under those
sections in the alternative.

3. Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

No. John Spark cannot be held liable for negligence as he willingly placed himself in a
position where harm might result.

In this case john spark voluntarily and willingly came forward to rescue by knowing the amount
of danger. In the case it was very much clear that there were many public but only John Spark
voluntarily rushed to rescue the child but the fire was so dangerous that unfortunately he could
not rescue the child.

John Spark was not aware the presence of Army as army had arrived after he enter the house and
hence he cannot be held liable under section 304A read with section 36 of IPC, 1860

No one could put Life in danger and enact the situation As per his this Fire had already spread
out in whole house due to which he could not complete and rescue the child.

.Volenti non fit iniuria is a famous Latin maxim which states that if someone willingly places
themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result,
they are not able to bring a claim against the other party

As we know that life of a person is very important and it is a fundamental right provided under article
21 of constitution. He purposely have not stopped from rescuing the child he tried but due to situation
in house he could not

At that period John Spark did not think about consequences he just wanted to rescue a child for his
mother John spark is not liable under section 304A read with section 36 of IPC, 1860 which states
death by negligence and effect caused partly by act and partly by omission

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT

 XII

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that the Hon’ble court of vidhishwa Pradesh may pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Vidhishwa pradesh can make law by using power given under art. 999 of the constitution of
vidhishwa pradesh.

2. Jargon weaponries has not killed the boy under corporate manslaughter.

3. John spark would not be held liable for negligence.

And pass any other order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed

Counsels for the defendent

MEMORANDUM FOR DEFENDANT