Memorandum For Applicant

TEAM CODE AIM 10
THE 4TH AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016
ON
SPORTS LAW
THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM
MEMORIAL FOR THE COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT
ON BEHALF OF
AGAINST
XERXESE MORENNIO, B.C.C.GO., AND
THE CENTRAL AGENCY OF
ORS
INVESTIGATION, STATE OF GODAM
&
&
LIAM JACKSON, HANK JEFFERSON, AND
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
ORS
CRICKET
- APPLICANT-
-RESPONDENT-
4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR NO
TITLE
PG NO
List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Issues for Consideration
Summery of Arguments
Contention I
10
Contention II
14
Contention III
16
10
Contention IV
19
11
Prayers
23
Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GPL
B.C.CGo
Godam Premier League

Board of Cricket Control of Godam
KR
Kodra Ranges
MK
Mandeva Kites
IFC
International Federation of Cricket
CAS
Court of Arbitrationof Sports
CAT
Category
ACUT
ED
PMLA
Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal

Enforcement Directorate
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
PIL
Public Interest Litigation
CAI
Central Agency of Investigation
COM
Committee
BOD
Board of Directors
H.C.
High Court
S.C.
Supreme Court
SE Shareholders
Para
Pg
Sweat Equity Shareholders

Paragraph
Page
Sec
Section
IPC
Indian Penal Code
SCR
Supreme Court Report
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
AIR
All India Report
IPL
Indian Premier League
ICC
International Cricket Council
B.C.C.I
Board of Cricket Control of India
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495AIR 465,1958
Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, 1997(7) SCC 156
Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375
Kali Ram VS. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) SCC (2) 808
Babu vs State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189
Salman Khan v. State of Maharashtra CR APPEAL-572-2015 Bombay
H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 696
R. K. Anand V. Registrar, Delhi High Court [(2009) 8 SCC 106 (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 563]
M. P. Lohia V. State of W. B. [(2005) 2 SCC 686 (2005) SCC (Cri) 556]
Ratan Lal Soni V the State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1994 (1) WLC 679, 1993 WLN UC 194
Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu (1988) 3 S.C.C. 319 at 346
Nazir Ahmad v King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253.
Ramchandra Keshav Adke v Govind Joti Chavre (1975) 1 SCC 559.
Shiv Bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322.
Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527.
Board of Cricket Control of India V Cricket Association of Bihar, Civil Appeal No.4235 OF 2014
Supreme Court
Legislations:
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Companies Act, 2013

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Prevention of Cxorruption Act,, 1988
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
Commentaries:
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on Law of Evidence
Taxmann on the Companies Act
Books:
Sport and The Law
Law and Sports in India by Justice Mukul Mudgal
Conflict of Laws byAtul M. Setalvad
Private International Law by Dr. S. R. Myneni

Rules and Regulations:
The International Cricket Council Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, 2014

B.C.C.I. Anti-corruption Code For Participants
IPL Code of conduct for players and team officials
Rule 8 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014
Securities and Exchanges Board of India (Issue of Sweat Equity) Regulations, 2002
Reports
Justice Mudgal Committee Report, 2014
Justice R. M. Lodha Committee Report, 2014
CBI's report on match fixing and related malpractices, 2000
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The applicants/appellants have filed the present Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Godam for
invoking its ordinary appellate jurisdiction under Section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which is reproduced herein below:
380- Special right of appeal in certain cases- Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, when
more persons than one are convicted in one trial, and an appealable judgment or order has been passed in
respect of any of such persons convicted at such trial shall have a right to appeal.
The applicants/appellants are, therefore, well within their rights to approach this Hon'ble Court seeking
appropriate relief as deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case at hand.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
B.C.CGo is the parent body responsible for all the activities related to cricket in Godam subcontinent,
GPL is its brain child to showcase the shortest version of the game of cricket in its 20-20 format. GPL
was launched in the year 2009 and it has been a hit ever since its inception. GPL did face some
turbulence in the 5th edition when a club named as Kondra Ranges (KR) was found guilty of match
fixing and spot fixing. Kondra Ranges was owned by a media tycoon Takishi. Every time any allegation
popped up, it was always subdued by sufficient explanations from Takishi and clean chit was given to KR
by B.C.CGo
Xerxese Morennio, was the Commissioner of GPL, also business development manager of B.C.CGo. He
was a potent business entity who motivated many business federations to invest into the game of cricket.
When the competition was into its 5th edition, general elections of BCCGo were supposed to be held.
This time Chairman of B.C.CGo for five years, Niladris was dethroned and Don Makofusa came to
power. This was the time when allegations against KR were taken seriously and thus could not take part
in the 6th edition of GPL, as it was banned by IFC for violation of IFCs Anti-Corruption Code protocols
and a penalty of Rs 60 crore as a fine was imposed on it. KR had an option to go into appeal to the CAS
within 21 days from the order , but it chose to serve the punishment and subsequently paid the sum of Rs
60 crore within a month. Takishi was also banned by IFC to take part into any activity related to GPL,
though his company (Pace airways) continued to remain the official partner of the competition and
official sponsor of the national team.
For the 6th edition, a new team named as Mandeva Kites (MK) entered the competition. The team
involved 8 players who were ex-players of KR including the captain of KR who was purchased for a
record price. The majority shares were held by Tutis Olanga who was the step son of the IFC Chief Putul
Tutis Olanga. The major share owners of K.R. were the sweat equity shareholders of the new Mandeva
Kites (Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaikh, and Gogo Morrenio) .MK in the 6 th edition lost many matches due to
low runs and fall of wickets involving mostly run outs. Thus due to this questions related to transfer of
liability arouse as it was alleged that MK was a result of manipulation of the existing system.
Xerxese appointed Peter Woodford to coach KR for the 5th edition of GPL. His appointment was highly
criticized as he had faced many discipline and corruption charges in his illustrious carrear .After KR was
banned a shocking incident took place where Peter Woodford was found dead in his hotel room. Before
his death he made several calls, out of which some were made to his relative including calls made to Zia

Kuriet and Xerxese. The autopsy suggested that it can never be death due to strangulation as the hiod
bone of Woodford was intact. Thus the investigating team finding no direct evidence in the case declared
that there was no murder.
Further in a sting operation conducted by a news channel the two players of MK, Hank and Liam were
alleged to guilty of spot fixing. IFC asked B.C.CGo to conduct an enquiry and take legal action against
the people involved. MK submitted the resignation of these 2 players which was appreciated by
B.C.C.Go. The players filed an appeal with Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of IFC challenging the
expulsion. According to a newspaper report, they confessed that they were forced to engage into
malpractices for which they received huge sums of money and that B.C.CGo and the Commissioner of
GPL Xerxese were the part of this misendeavour. While in this issue clean chit was given by the
B.C.CGo, IFC restricted MK to take part in any world event, which was challenged by it in ACUT.
Xerxese was suspended by B.C.CGo and not only this, a complaint was filed in the Enforcement
Directorate (ED) by it under section 4 of PMLA in relation to a multi-million deal between Meghe sports
and FSL regarding T.V. rights on GPL worth Rs 600 crore in 2010. A PIL regarding the matter was filled
by Altaf Aslam in the Honble Supreme Court of Godam upon which BCCGo was ordered to investigate
into the matter and thus a 11 member committee was formed.. IFC gave a clean chit to B.C.CGo but SC
rejected this report.
Another PIL was filed by Czar Leh (an IFC empire), challenging the findings of COM 1. Supreme Court
was convinced that COM I was influenced thus directed B.C.C.Go to conduct a fresh enquiry and no
BOD member shall be a part of the committee. COM 2 report was also criticised and B.C.CGos action
and incompetency to file a consolidated report was criticised. Thus S.C passed an order directing the CAI
to investigate the matter and file the charge sheet within one month. CAI filed the same in a special court.
Charges were imposed on Xerxese, B.C.CGo and the three sweat equity owners of MK related to
corruption, murder, match fixing and spot fixing. However similar to COM 2 report CAI made inferences
that certain important documents were missing and it was nobodys fault but B.C.CGo.
In CAI Court, accused parties were convicted and case went in appeal to the High Court. In the same CAI
court there was another case pending where B.C.CGo and Xerxese were charged with corruption thus in
addition to this case, the matter referred by IFC was also consolidated.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the factum of commission of murder can be established from the

circumstances and whether the accused are responsiblefor murdering Peter
Woodford
2. Whether Xerxese and BCCGo are a part of the racket of corruption
3. Whether there should be a transferof liability from KR to MK
4. Whether Hank and Liam are guilty of the offense of spot fixing.
5. Whether Xerxese, BCCGo, and MK are a part of the nexus of betting syndicate
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The applicant cannot be held guilty of murder due to lack of evidence

The factum of commission of murder cannot be proved as there is no proper evidence to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The motive or intent for the same cannot be established and is
unclear. Moreover, the investigation has been done in accordance with the rules and regulations.
2. The applicant is not liable for any charge of corruption
In Corruption, there was no proof for the allegations made on Xerxese and three SE shareholders, All the
allegations made by the two players are backed by no evidence and The documents which were
misplaced cannot be presumed as primary evidence.
3. The transfer of liability of allegations on the applicant is not true.
In transfer of liability all the allegations on the appellant is not true because both the entities have
different owners with an new constitution .Moreover the extent of liability of the share holders is only to
the extent of their shares and not more than that.
4. The players hank and liam are not guilty of the offense of spot fixing
The corruption at every stage of this betting nexus is evident, and accusing the players is the safest and
easiest way out for the masterminds of this plan,.Evidence found in the sting operation is not admissible
in the court of law, and The apparent confession given by players to the newspaper editor is not
admissible in the court of law as an evidence.
CONTENTION I
Whether the factum of commission of murder can be established from the

circumstances and whether the accused are responsible for murdering Peter
Woodford
1.1 There is no proper evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a murder had taken place.
The Landmark Supreme Court Judgment of Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab 1, the court gave a four-point
test which the prosecution must observe and prove in order to bring the case under Sec. 302 IPC2
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is
to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the inquiry proceeds further and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements
set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry
is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the
prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under Sec. 300 of Indian Penal Code,1860. This four point
test is applied in many such subsequent cases . It is mainly after this judgment that clear guidelines were
provided for the application of this section. These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus
classicus.
In the present case none of the four elements have been found to be satisfied. Firstly, the autopsy report
clearly suggested that the hiod bone of the body was intact, which means that death had not been due to
strangulation. Moreover, it was silent about any bodily injury being present which could have been the
reason for his death. There were also reports that the cause of the death could have been due to an asthma
attack as he had an asthma problem and the circumstantial evidence indicates the same possibility.
1
2
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495AIR 465,1958

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
10

Further none of the articles recovered from the spot forms a chain of events which could conclusively
indicate commission of a murder. Thus the events do no link together to conclusively prove a murder to
have taken place.
In the case of Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat 3 it was stated that the Court must
satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets
snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts.
In the present case there is some lacuna or vacuum in the evidence which is not able to establish a chain
of events. There is no such scintillating article recovered from the spot which would be conclusive to
prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, the circumstances in which the body was found suggests that it
was a natural death as no sort of injury can be found on the body and the autopsy report has the same say.
Thus there is every possible reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Thus the case cannot
be decided on these merits.
The Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 states that - Recovery of certain incriminating articles at the instance
of accused u/s 27 of the Act by itself cannot form the basis of conviction - Recovery of incriminating
articles and its evidentiary value has to be considered in the light of other relevant circumstances as well
and the chain of events suggesting the involvement of the accused. As stated above there is no chain of
events which would suggest involvement of the accused. Thus case cannot be decided only on the basis
of circumstantial evidence as the evidence do not link together to form a conclusive proof.
Further it is submitted that there is no material available with the prosecution to establish the factum of
the commission of the murder. The aforesaid vacuum cannot not be filled up on the basis of any
presumption. The same principle was followed in the case of Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab 4 wherein it
was stated that circumstantial evidence could not be relied upon, where there was any vacuum in
evidence. Each aspect of the criminal act alleged against the accused, has to be established on the basis of
material of a nature, which would be sufficient to lead to the inference that there could be no other view
possible, than the one arrived at on the basis of the said circumstantial evidence.
1.2 The intention or motive behind the murder is unclear.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused
3
4
Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, 1997(7) SCC 156

Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375
11

assumes importance. The ingredient 'intention' discussed in sec. 300 of I.PC. 5 is very important and that
gives a clue in a given case whether offence involved is murder or not. Supreme Court also discussed the
intent element required for this section in great detail. Determining the intention becomes important in
determining, whether the act is murder or not.
In the present case, the intent or motive of the accused cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt as
there was no such evidence to establish a link between the accused and Peter Woodford in being a part of
this betting racket. There is nothing to prove that Woodford was a part of this alleged misendeavour.
Thus, Xerxese and the 3 S.E. shareholders have no motive behind murdering Woodford.
According to Section 3 of the Evidence Act 6, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the
matters before it, the Court believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
In the present case it cannot be presumed that a murder has taken place as the prima facie evidence does
not affirm it. Thus the court cannot adjudicate on the supposition that it has happened. As it is a well
settled law that an accused has to be treated as innocent unless the contrary is proved by the prosecution
7
.Thus the investigating team was careful in avoiding to jump to any conclusion without concrete proof
and thus took into consideration material as well as circumstantial evidence turn by turn. Since the
investigating team did not encounter any material evidence and the link between the circumstantial
evidence was snapped, it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that a murder has taken place and
also that there was any motive.
Babu vs State of Kerala8 was a case of circumstantial evidence, thus, the prosecution had to establish the
motive for the crime. The court held that the test for proving a case of circumstantial evidence stands
entirely on a different footing than a case of direct evidence for the same. This Court has also held that
the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of
the accused.
1.3 The investigation was done in accordance with the rules and regulations.
The investigation done by the investigation team is in consonance with the procedure followed by the
CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act9. In the Chapter 14.14 of the CBI manuals the
examination of the scene of crime and the procedure to be followed is stated. The investigation team
5
6
7
8
9
Section 300(3) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Kali Ram VS. State of Himachal Pradesh,(1973) SCC (2) 808
Babu vs State of Kerala,(2010) 9 SCC 189
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
12

should take into consideration:
Information on the corpus delicti (body of the crime.)
Information on the modus operandi used by criminals.
Information to link a suspect with witness/victim.
Information linking a person to the crime scene such as different types material like documents,
fingerprints, blood, hair, fibers and soil, paint, etc. left by the criminal may be available at the
scene of crime, which sometimes may provide one of the most vital clues.
Information to disprove or support a witness's testimony.
Information on identification of a suspect.
Providing lead to the investigation.
Information on identification of a substance.
In the present case the investigating team took all the necessary steps and followed all the rules and
regulation as given under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. They at first called for an autopsy to be
conducted in order to determine the cause of death of the person so that the investigation starts on the
right footing. It took into consideration material as well as circumstantial evidence and made sure that no
stone was left unturned and each and every nook and corner of the spot is properly scouted out. It then
properly scrutinized each and every document and device which could have helped them to find a lead to
the investigation. The investigating team considering the evidentiary value of the articles found and also
the autopsy report came to a conclusion that that this was a death under normal circumstances and the
evidence wasnt enough and appropriate to satisfy the factum of commission of a murder.
It is further submitted that the claim made by the RESPONDENT that the investigation was under
influence of the mighty is baseless and false. There is no such instance during the course of investigation
where the rules and regulations were found to be breached. Neither the investigation favoured any of the
accused nor did it ignore any sort of important evidence. It tried to ascertain their guilt on two grounds,
firstly it tried to gather material evidence but the same was not found to be present. Now rather than
reaching any conclusion, it then tried the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Scrutinizing each
and every nook and corner of the case it made a logical conclusion that the evidence from any angle
wasnt sufficient to incriminate the accused and thus considering the merits of the case it ruled in favour
of the accused. Thus from the above arguments it is clear that the investigation was free from any sort of
influence and all rules and regulations were observed at every point during the course of investigation.
13

CONTENTION II
Whether Xerxese and BCCGo are a part of the racket of corruption
2.1 There was no proof for the allegations made on Xerxese and three SE shareholders.
The allegations made on Xerxese and three sweat equity shareholders of MK are mere speculations and
there is no proof that the two players admitted their guilt and made allegations on the accused, this was
all reported by print and electronic media. These reports are neither authentic nor reliable. The same stand
was taken by High Court in the case of Salman Khan v. state of Maharashtra 10 in which The HC observed
that strong suspicion of guilt cannot be used to hold a person guilty
Pointing out that there were several hypotheses about the case, Justice Joshi said: The court must decide
the case on material brought on record (which) can be accepted as evidence. It must not be swayed by
popular opinion. The court is expected to be impervious to pressure from public. Stating that there was
no place for general public opinion, he said opinion or perception is formed on the basis of information
played through news by media and other institutions. It is not new that a particular fact is repeatedly said
and assumes the status of truth. The truth, however, has to be probed before court of law and established
on the principles of evidence and cardinal principle of jurisprudence. This burden cannot be forgotten.
Thus from above it is clear that speculative reports by media cannot form the basis of conviction of a
person. The courts usually try to avoid getting influenced by media reports. The confession made in front
of a magistrate is admissible and is often used as a basis of conviction.
Moreover, at every instant Hank and Liam have challenged their conviction, which shows that they
havent accepted their guilt and are trying to protect themselves from the prosecution.
2.2 All the allegations made by the two players are backed by no evidence.
In the alternate it is submitted that even if the statements made by the two players are assumed to be true,
the allegations made by them are completely baseless and false as they are found guilty of spot fixing and
match fixing and finding no way out, they started playing a blame game in order to escape from the
10Salman Khan v. state of Maharashtra CR APEAL-572-2015
14

offence they committed. It can be said to contain an imputation or defamation11 of Xerxese, the three SE
shareholders and BCCGo. As it is contended that if the reputation of a head of an institution or
association is injured, it would be a defamation of such institution or association as a whole and every
member of such institution or association will fall within the meaning of an aggrieved person.
They engaged themselves in malpractices for which they were paid a lump-sum amount and survival and
getting qualified for the national team as a reason for committing this offense is a lame excuse which
wouldnt prevent them from facing legal action under the law.
They gave self-contradictory and ironical statements that they were forced to indulge in this for which
they were given huge sum of money. This shows that their reasoning is void as well as defence is void.
The players under the guise of being vulnerable sentinels of a so called nexus controlled by the mighty
are trying to blame Xerxese and others for being the masterminds behind this plan. Xerxese is a potent
business entity who motivated many business federations to invest into the game of cricket 12. He is a
person of great integrity who hadnt been alleged of any offence in the past.
By acting as whistle-blowers and taking a stand to make people aware of the injustice in the system is
nothing but a planned strategy to escape from being prosecuted under the law as the same could have
been done by them when their guilt wasnt proved or they werent caught red handed. The two players in
the shoes of being responsible citizens of the country are trying to fool the people and the media in order
to shift the attention away from them. All the allegations they have made are backed by no evidence and
their defence is full of vague and wayward reasoning. This was a publicity stunt in order to protect their
interests and misguide the direction of the investigation.
Xerxeses suspension and alleged involvement in the multimillion T.V. rights deal is unjustifiable and
false as there is no tinge of evidence to suggest that he was profited from the said deal between Meghe
sports and FSL entertainment ltd.
2.3 The documents which were misplaced cannot be presumed as primary evidence.
BCCGo failure to keep all the documents intact cannot be termed to be corruption as this is not an act
done for any personal gain or benefit neither motivated by the same. It is just an act of deficient conduct
on the part of BCCGo. The documents which were misplaced cannot be presumed as primary evidence.
The said documents cannot be assumed to have an evidentiary value which would have solely
incriminated the accused. The recommendations given by both the committees i.e. Com 1 and Com 2
regarding the importance of the documents for proving the guilt of the accused were out rightly rejected
Defamation as defined in Section 499 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
12 Moot proposition pg. 2 para 5
11
15

by the honourable S.C. On the other hand, CAI in its findings nowhere mentioned the importance of the
documents in relation to the allegations on the accused rather it held BCCGo liable for its incompetence
akin to COM 2 report. Thus it cannot be stated with certainty that the documents which went missing
could have played a major role to incriminate the accused. So Xerxese cannot be held guilty for
corruption only on the presumption that the documents had an evidentiary value.
In the present case there is no surety that the missing documents would have turned out to be a primary
evidence, therefore the question of there being a copy of these missing documents and their admissibility
as secondary evidence doesnt arise. Moreover, secondary evidence related to the contents of the
documents is inadmissible.
The same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. v. A.
Ramalingam13 in which it stated that since the original documents were not produced at any time, nor had
any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow
a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is
inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other
of the cases provided for in the section14
CONTENTION III
Whether there should be a transfer of liability from KR to MK
3.1 The owners of both teams are different.

Kondra Ranges (KR) was owned by a media tycoon named Takishi who also owned an airline Company
named Pace Airways but team KR was banned from playing in the Godham Public League (GPL) for
the reason that it violated certain International Federation of Crickets (IFC) Anti-Corruption Code of
Conduct protocols such as bypassing security measures on and off the grounds, skipping WADA checkups as well as giving abrupt statements to the media.
The new team Mandeva Kites (MK) which came into existence was an entirely new entity, with a new
constitution and the majority of its shares were held in the name of Tutis Olanga who was the step-son of
13 H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 696
14 Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
16

the Chief of the IFC Putul Tutis Olanga. The provision of incorporation of a new team was given through
proposal of a re-auction of the players and the clubs, thus directly strengthening the fact that the new
team formed was a completely new organization having no links with KR. Therefore, it follows that MK
does not have any liability to be a party to the allegations that were put on KR even though most of the
players were the same and major share-owners were the sweat equity share-holders. Moreover, the facts
that KR was banned by the IFC in the 5 th Edition and the franchise along with its organization dissolved
and MK was registered in the run-up to the 6 th Edition with an entirely different management and a
separate constitution clearly indicate that there is absolutely no similarity between the two clubs except
the sweat equity share-owners being the same as the major share-owners of the previous entity.
The Privy Council15 has observed that if an action has to be taken in a prescribed, particular manner, it
must be carried out following such process only. Else, it may be held to have not been effected to all. This
still-standing enunciation of law with respect to strict compliance of procedural requirement has been
consistently applied by the Supreme Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke v Govind Joti Chavre 16, Shiv
Bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh17 and Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan18.
Herein, the proper procedure as laid out has been duly and comprehensively followed.
3.2 The sweat equity share-holders have liability only to the extent of their shares and no more
under any circumstance.
Sweat equity shares are shares issued to either the directors or the employees of the company at a
discounted rate19 in order to retain them in the company as consideration of their contribution to the
company20. In the present situation, the sweat equity shares were allocated to the appellants in
consideration of their contributions in the incorporation, registration and management of the company.
But as per the relevant judicial pronouncements on the Companies Act, it is well-settled that the sweat
equity share-holders have the same rights and liabilities as that of the equity share holders.
Keeping such provision in mind, we can venture to suggest that the sweat equity share-holders have to
necessarily be treated in the same manner as the equity share-holders. Consequently, the sweat equity
share-holders are not liable for the companys purported obligations merely by reason of them being
15 Nazir Ahmad v King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253.
16 Ramchandra Keshav Adke v Govind Joti Chavre (1975) 1 SCC 559.
17 Shiv Bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322.
18 Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527.
19 Section 54, Companies Act, 2013.
20 To be read in conjunction with Rule 8 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 as framed under
Chapter IV of the Companies Act, 2013 for private limited companies and the Securities and Exchanges Board of India (Issue
of Sweat Equity) Regulations, 2002 for public listed companies.
17

shareholders, unless the companys constitution provides that shareholder liability is unlimited. If the
constitution does not provide for this, then liability as a shareholder is limited to the amount unpaid on a
share held by the share-holder or any liability expressly provided for in the constitution or any liability
for breach of directors duties if the share-holders are deemed to be directors (this is applicable if the
company gives the shareholders powers that would normally be exercisable by the directors). In view of
the present case, the moot proposition is totally silent about the existence of any such provision in the
constitution of the new entity, that makes the share-holders liable for anything beyond their share-holding
capacity. It is, accordingly, presumed that a provision to this effect is not in the constitution of the new
company. This inherently restricts the extent of the liability that can be imposed.
It follows logically that share-holder liability is confined, restricted and limited to only that of their
shares/share-holding. The appellants current status of being sweat equity share-holders in the new
company cannot be sought to be linked to their previous status of being majority share-owners of the
previous company. Any attempt to draw a connection, besides being totally futile, is wholly erroneous
and totally misconceived. Their control over the management of the previous company (KR) ceased to
exist as displayed by the franchise of KR having been dissolved and terminated and its liability taken care
of by payment of the fine imposed as punishment. There is no question of transfer of liability as both the
entities are entirely different from each other and a re-auction of the clubs and players has happened by
following a set procedure rendering the formation of MK legally tenable and free from any infirmities,
procedural or otherwise.
The usual practice is that a company generally issues 5-10% of its total shares as sweat equity shares up
to a maximum percentage of 15% of the total capital. And also according to the Companies Act, 2013, per
Section 54 clearly states that the issuance of the shares can only be done by passing a special resolution
by the company. This indicates that the final decision of issuance of the sweat equity shares is in the
hands of the top management and Board of Directors only. There is no possibility that the appellants
could have influenced all the members of the top management to issue the shares to them so that they
could continue with the malpractices that were alleged upon them. This clearly indicates that the decision
of issuing the sweat equity shares to the appellants was the sole decision of the directors and there was
absolutely no prejudice or coercion involved for the issuance. The liability of KR and all the people
connected thereto extinguished as soon as they had paid the fine of Rs. 60 crore imposed on them and
were banned from playing in the 5th Edition .There is no carry-forward of this liability or the ban imposed
as it is a new edition and the procedure as prescribed by the B.C.CGO for acquiring a team in the 6 th
Edition has been duly followed.
18
CONTENTION IV
Whether Hank and Liam are guilty of the offense of spot fixing and whether
Xerxese, BCCGo, and MK are a part of the nexus of betting syndicate
4.1 The corruption at every stage of this betting nexus is evident, and accusing the players is the
safest and easiest way out for the masterminds of this plan.
As stated in the factsheet, the team KR was always in the limelight because of various reasons and had
always been surrounded by controversies. There were accusations on the players as well as team officials
relating to betting and spot fixing and their players had been alleged of not following the Anti-Corruption
Code protocols formulated by IFC.
Despite all these allegations, B.C.CGo did not take any action against them and the allegations were
subdued by apparently sufficient explanation given by Takishi, the owner of the team KR. B.C.CGo,
being the parent body of GPL, was under an obligation to take action, or at least start an inquiry into the
matters of betting and spot fixing. The power of inquiry and execution has been vested in B.C.CGo under
the disciplinary procedure given in the operational rules of GPL.
Under Para 6.4.2 of the Operational Rules, the Disciplinary Procedure Commission constituted
under Para 6.2.2 may through BCCI impose various sanctions under the Operational Rules.21
Despite such provisions, obligation and responsibility, it is seen throughout the first 5 editions of GPL
that no action was taken by B.C.CGo regarding corruption. Further, the GPL has proved out to be a big
money 20-20 extravaganza for B.C.CGo. [para 1 of the factsheet] A lot of money is involved in this
venture and the official partner of B.C.CGo in the venture is Pace Airways, a company owned by
Takishi which plays a vital role in funding the tournament. This also could be one of the reasons why KR
was favoured by B.C.CGo despite of serious allegations been made on KR. Thus the roots of corruption
can be traced as deep as the B.C. CGo. Corruption is seen at every stage of the system. Thus the nexus of
betting and corruption is much bigger and deeper and the players are a soft target for BCCGO as well as
MK in order to escape from coming under the scanner of the prosecution.
In case of KR, they were given two options, either they could pay a huge fine and avoid legal action or
21 IPL Code of conduct for players and team officials, Article 6
19

can appeal to CAS22 and prove themselves innocent. It is pertinent to note that this was a planned strategy
to create an escape route for the owners so that the nexus remains functional. Thus in the furtherance of
the same plan KR paid the fine and dissolved the team in order to avoid any further legal action and
prevent them from being questioned.
Now in case of the new franchise of MK, the whole corrupt system including BCCGO is trying to shift
the burden of its wrong deeds on the shoulders of the players and thus escape from any kind of legal
action. B.C.CGo, which is quite evidently a part of this nexus, has given a clean chit to MK, but has
declared the players guilty. In the same manner MK submitted the resignation of the 2 players in order to
escape from the liability and showcase their so called protest against corruption. Hence there are
substantial grounds to believe that the players are not guilty of the offence of spot fixing and are just
being used as a target in order to misdirect the course of investigation.
4.2 Evidence found in the sting operation is not admissible in the court of law.
In the case of R. K. Anand V Registrar, Delhi High Court2324 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the
guidelines for conducting a sting operation
It would be a sad day for the court to employ the media for setting its own house in order; and media too
would certainly not relish the role of being the snoopers for the court. Moreover, to insist that a report
concerning a pending trial may be published or a sting operation concerning a trial may be done only
subject to the prior consent and permission of the court would tantamount to pre- censorship of reporting
of court proceedings. Compared to normal reporting, a sting operation is an incalculably riskier and
dangerous thing to do. A sting is based on deception and, therefore, it would attract the legal restrictions
with far greater stringency and any infraction would invite more severe punishment.
It is a fact that media and especially news channels are hungry to showcase sensational stuffs in order to
gain TRP. So they might also adopt wrong ways of reporting and turning and twisting things in the
interest of their TRP. Moreover, media persons may have some vested interest in the matter or people
with malicious intent might use media for their wrongdoings, as happened in the Uma Khuranas case in
which the same has been done by media, viz, a sting operation based on mere deception. Hence it is
humbly submitted by that this kind of evidence obtained by sting operation is not only inadmissible in the
court of law, but is also dangerous at large to the investigation system in India.
22 Procedural Code, Court of Arbitration of Sports, General Provisions, R27
23 R. K. Anand V. Registrar, Delhi High Court [(2009) 8 SCC 106 (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 563]
24M. P. Lohia V. State of W. B. [(2005) 2 SCC 686 (2005) SCC (Cri) 556]
20
4.3 The apparent confession given by the players to the newspaper editor is not admissible in the
court of law as an evidence
The third ground on which the players are booked, is that they have confessed and admitted their guilt. It
is pertinent to note the fact that the players did not admit their guilt in front of any magistrate, which is
the only form of confession admissible as an evidence. They have apparently admitted their guilt in the
confession given to a newspaper editor and the same has been stated in a news report. Media reports are
not admissible as an evidence in the court of law and the same has been held by the Rajasthan High Court
in the case of Ratan Lal Soni V the State of Rajasthan and Ors.25 Where it stated that - Said that Judicial
notice cannot be taken of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary
evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence.
Newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act26 by which an
allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the
Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. A statement
of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence
of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.
The supreme Court of India in Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu27, , considered the question of
admissibility of the news items appearing in a press report in the Newspaper and opined:
"We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary
evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A
newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 which an
allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the
Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. It is now
well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore,
inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to
have perceived the fact reported."
Moreover, there are a lot of facts which substantiate that the players have not admitted their guilt and they
still challenge their expulsion. Immediately after the restrictions were imposed on the players, they
challenged this decision in the ACUT. When the orders were confirmed by ACUT, they came to the
25 Ratan Lal Soni V the State of Rajasthan and Ors.1994 (1) WLC 679, 1993 WLN UC 194
26 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
27 Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu(1988) 3 S.C.C. 319
21

municipal legal system for justice. This shows that in every possible way, they are trying to prove their
innocence and they have not admitted, in any way, their guilt. Further, Both the reports by the committees
1 and 2 respectively, which held the players guilty, were highly criticized werent accepted. Thus these
are reasonable grounds for the appellant to submit that the newspaper report which talks about the
players confession is not admissible in the court of law.
22
PRAYERS
In light of facts of the case, the arguments advanced and the authorities cited, this Honble Court
may be pleased to allow this appeal and adjudge and declare as follows:
In the matter of Xerxese Morennio, B.C.C.Co, and ors V Central Agency of Investigation:
1. The order of the CAI court be set aside and the accused be discharged from all the charges.
2. Pass any other order which the court may deem fit in light of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
In the matter of Liam Jackson, Hank Jefferson and ors V International Federation of Cricket
1. The Order of the ACUT be set aside and the accused be discharged from all the charges.
2.
Pass any other order which the court may deem fit in light of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the Applicants shall duty bound forever pray.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sd/(Counsel for the Applicant)
23

Memorandum For Applicant

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

Memorandum For Applicant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE AIM 10

THE 4TH AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM

MEMORIAL FOR THE COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

XERXESE MORENNIO, B.C.C.GO., AND

THE CENTRAL AGENCY OF

INVESTIGATION, STATE OF GODAM

LIAM JACKSON, HANK JEFFERSON, AND

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Issues for Consideration

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Godam Premier League

International Federation of Cricket

Court of Arbitrationof Sports

Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal

Public Interest Litigation

Central Agency of Investigation

Sweat Equity Shareholders

Indian Penal Code

Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court Cases

All India Report

Indian Premier League

International Cricket Council

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

Board of Cricket Control of India

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Shiv Bahadur Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 322.

Deep Chand v State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1527.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Companies Act, 2013

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Private International Law by Dr. S. R. Myneni

The International Cricket Council Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, 2014

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the factum of commission of murder can be established from the

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

1. The applicant cannot be held guilty of murder due to lack of evidence

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Whether the factum of commission of murder can be established from the

Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495AIR 465,1958

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, 1997(7) SCC 156

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Section 300(3) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant

4th Amity International Moot Court Competition, 2016

Memorandum on behalf of the Applicant