TEAM CODE -1711

7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA

IN THE MATTER OF

JOHN APPELLANT

V.

U.T, CHANDIGARH RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__OF 2020

UNDER SECTION 374 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

§ Section
& And
A.I.R All India Reporter
S.C Supreme Court
Anr. Another
Art. Article
ILR Indian Law Report
Ed. Edition
Ors. Others
Prop Proposition
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases

U.O.I. Union of India

v. Versus
IPC Indian Penal Code
CRPC Code of Criminal Procedure
U.T Union Territory
FSL Forensic Science Laboratory

I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND RULES REFERRED:

 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

BOOKS REFERRED

 PSA Pillai, Indian Penal Code, 12th Edition, 2020.

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, 36th Edition, 2020.

ONLINE DATABASES & WEBSITES

 www.scconline.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.lawfinderlive.com
 www.legalcrystal.com

II
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

TABLE OF CASES

S.No. NAME OF CASES CITATIONS

1. State v. K Narsimhachary (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 41

2. T Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401

3. Samim v. State of West Bengal CRA 72 of 2017
4. Satbir Dutta v. State of Tripura 2013(5) GLT 607
5. Samarjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab 2015(4) R.R.R.( Criminal) 459
6. Saifuddin Gazi v. State of West Bengal (2018)4 Cal CriLR 430
7. Shabbir Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Madhya 2015 Cri.LR. (Guj.) 38
Pradesh
8. Raghavendra v. State of Gujarat 2015 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal)
196.
9. A Pareed Pillai v. State (1973) SC 326.
10. Rajesh Bajaj v. NCT of Delhi & Ors (1999) SC 1216
11. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) CriLJ 4852
12. S.W Palanitkar v. State of Bihar (2001) 10 TMI 1150
13. Abdul Kuddus Mustaq Shaikh & Ors. v. State 2019(2) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 475)
of Maharashtra

14. Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2015(1) ILR (Kerela) 641.

15. Siridhar v. State 2010 (6) R.C.R. 2305

16. Tika Ram v. State of U.P 2012(13) R.C.R. (Criminal)
622
17. Arvind Bakelal Verma v. State of Maharashtra 2013(12) R.C.R. (Criminal) 28.

18. Jagannath Saha v. State of West Bengal 2020(1) AICLR.

19. M Mummutti v. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1705
20. Narayan Maruti Waghmode v. State of 2011 CrLJ 3318
Maharashtra
21. Pirthi Singh v. State of Punjab 2006(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 786

III
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

22. Ponnuswamy v. State. (1997) SCC (Cri) 217

23. Kiran Kumar K Khanda v. State of Maharashtra 2011 CrLJ 2748
24. Haider Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal C.R.A 726 of 2016
25. Rex v. Baskerville 1916 (2) KB 658

IV
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The council on behalf of Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction invoked by the

appellant in the present case.

Sec. 374 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Any person convicted on 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 of more than seven years has

been passed against him or against any other person convicted at same trial, may appeal to

High Court.

However, the Council on behalf of respondent reserves the right to challenge the same.

V
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. John, a Foreign National and a student of 2 nd year in M.A History of Punjab University,

Chandigarh. On 23/12/16 he went to CITCO Petrol Pump at 7:00 p.m to get his scooter

refuellled for Rs.50.

2. .He gave hundred rupee currency note to sales man Rakesh and demanded back the balance

amount of Rs.50

3. On his way, he doubted the genuineness of note as it was a bit rough and coarse, he showed

the note to his head sales man Arun, they both minutely observed the currency note

comparing it with 30-40 more currency notes of Rs.100

4. In the meantime appellant started shouting on Rakesh and Arun, rushed inside the cabin,

held the colars of Rakesh and gave him a blow for not returning the balance amount.

5. Rakesh called the police, police arrived in 25 minutes comprising of sub inspector Jai

Singh. On showing showing Rs. 100 currency note that the note appeared fake. Therefore

they frisked john and found 19 more similar currency notes in his possession. So they took

John and all the notes into custody

6. John was charged u/s. 417, 420 read with section 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E of IPC.

And was made to stand in Ld Trial Court. All three witnesses i.e. Rakesh, Arun and Jai

Singh along with Dr. Satwant Singh, a noted expert from Govt. Forensic Science Lab,

Shimla also deposed that after a minute examination of 4 hours, he had reached to the

conclusion that the notes are fake. John did not lead any defense evidence but merely

pleaded the plea of innocence in his statement u/s. 313 of CrPC

VI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

7. The court found him guilty and imposed of R.I of 2 years and fine of Rs. 25000. John thus

filed an appeal against the decision of the Court.

VII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY UNDER SECTIONS 417 & 420 OF

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS

489A, 498B, 498C, 498D, 498E OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860?

VIII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Contention 1: That the appeal is frivolous and be dismissed

The courts have time and again maintained that “If the evaluation of the evidence and findings
recorded by trial court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which
trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the appellate court should not
disturb the order of conviction. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble bench that the
present appeal is frivolous and the findings recorded by trial court after considering the
testimonies from witnesses, examination from Government Science Forensic Lab, Shimla is
free from any perversity.

Contention 2: That the Appellant is guilty of offences under sections 417& 420 of Indian
Penal Code
It is humbly submitted that accused in the present case fraudulently or dishonestly induced
Rakesh to get his scooter refueled for rs. 50 by giving a fake 100 rs. Note. On him being
successful in passing fake 100 rs. Note he would have caused wrongful loss worth loss to the
petrol pump, appellant intended to pay for petrol worth rs. 50 by attempting to use a fake 100
rs.note. Furthermore, he also insisted on receiving 50 rupees from the pertrol pump employee
as balance amount from his 100 rs. Note. The intention to defraud is apparent from the conduct
of appellant as he attempted to deceit the petrol pump

Contention 3: That the Appellant is guilty of offences under sections 489A, 489B, 489C,
489D & 489E.
It is humbly submitted that appellant in the present case knowingly used forged note as genuine

Knowledge and intention are state of mind which cannot be proved by direct evidence and

have to be inferred from attending circumstances.

IX
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

It is humbly submitted that appellant had the knowledge that his note was not genuine, which is

supported by his impatience to leave the petrol pump as soon as he can, even assaulting the

petrol pump employee in the process. Moreover, it has been held by courts from time to time

that when person does not give any reasons as to him being in possession of currency notes,

then it will be presumed that accused knew or had reasons to believe of notes to be counterfeit.

X
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND BE DISMISSED

The courts have time and again maintained that “If the evaluation of the evidence and findings
recorded by trial court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which
trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the appellate court should
not disturb the order of conviction.1

It needs to be pointed out that except for statutory provisions laid down by CrPC or any other
law which is in force, an appeal cannot lie from any judgement or order of a criminal court.2
Thus there is no vested right to appeal. The justification behind this principle is that the courts
which try a case are competent enough with the presumption that trial has been fairly
conducted.

Moreover, In the case of Samim SK & Ors. v. State of West Bengal,3 it has been held that
appellate court can consider with reference to facts whether there are any extranuating
circumstances which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime, otherwise it should not
interfere unless there is strong reason and if the sentence is grossly inadequate or excessive.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble bench that the present appeal is frivolous and the
findings recorded by trial court after considering the testimonies from witnesses, examination
from Government Science Forensic Lab, Shimla4 is free from any perversity

1
State v. K Narsimhachary, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 41. T Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC (Cri)
401.
2
§372, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3
Samim v. State of West Bengal, CRA 72 of 2017.
4
Line 16, Prop sheet

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

Moreover, Sec. 293 of CrPC5 provides that report submitted by Director of Central or State
FSL6 can be admitted as an evidence. Also in Satbir Dutta v. State of Tripura7 wherein on
search of the accused’s body total 14 fake currency notes were found. Furthermore,
Investigating Officer in course of investigation sent those currency notes to SFSL8 for
examination and opinion and report was collected which shows that all those fake currency
notes were fake, defense did not challenge that report, all the ingredients of sec. 489E were
held to be proved and the person was convicted.

In Samarjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,9 wherein the accused have not challenged the
reports nor have made any request nor they have any request to the trial court to summon the
expert for cross-examination, it has been held that reports of Govt. Scientific expert are
admissible. Moreover, In Saifuddin Gazi v. State of West Bengal10 The report of forensic
department which unequivocally establishes that the notes were fake was accepted as an
evidence

Burden of explaining away innocence is on the appellant by either disclosing the source from
where he obtained such currency notes or his lack of knowledge about such currency notes
being fake, failure to do so will result in implication for charges.11

Raghavendra v. State of Gujarat,12 It has been held that possession of counterfeit currency
note is sufficient for conviction when accused could not explain its possession coupled with his
conduct which shows that he has knowledge or reason to believe that currency notes in his
possession were fake.

It is humbly submitted that, appellant is patently guilty of offences he has charged with and
there has been no miscarriage of justice by his conviction by the trial court,

5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6
Forensic Science Laboratory
7
Satbir Dutta v. State of Tripura, 2013(5) GLT 607.
8
State Forensic Science Laboratory, India
9
Samarjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2015(4) R.R.R.( Criminal) 459
10
Saifuddin Gazi v. State of West Bengal, (2018)4 Cal CriLR 430.
11
Shabbir Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2015 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 196.
12
2015 Cri.LR. (Guj.) 38.

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

CONTENTION 2: THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF OFFENCES UNDER

SECTIONS 417 & 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

2.1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF CHEATING

Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code as whoever fraudulently or
dishonestly deceives a person in order to induce that person to deliver a property to any
person or to consent to retain any property

From the above definition, some of the basic elements of cheating are:

FRAUDULENTLY

The act should either be fraudulent or dishonest to be termed as under the offence of cheating

“A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with the intent of defraud but

not otherwise.”13

In the present case, appellant intended to pay for petrol worth rs. 50 by attempting to use a fake

100 rs.note. Furthermore, he also insisted on receiving 50 rupees from the pertrol pump

employee as balance amount from his 100 rs. note. The intention to defraud is apparent from

the conduct of appellant as he attempted to deceit the petrol pump.

ACTING DESHONESTLY

The intention of wrongdoer in every criminal offence is of great importance. Therefore, in

cheating also the person who commits the offence should act dishonestly.
13
§.25, IPC.

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful

loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.14

In the present case, the dishonest intention is apparent, where in the event of appellant’s

success in passing of fake 100 rs note, he would have caused a wrongful loss worth 100 rs. to

the petrol pump employees.

DECEIVE

The accused must deceive the person in such a way that he is induced to deliver any property

Also it is very pertinent to note that deception should be with dishonest or fraudulent

intention.15 The appellant attempted to deceive by inducing Rakesh to sell petrol to him with a

dishonest and fraudulent intention to never ethically pay for the petrol. 16The Supreme Court

very clearly held that crux of the offence of cheating is the intention of person who induces the

victim of his representation. The nature of transaction is irrelevant, which would become

decisive in discerning whether there was a commission of an offence or not. 17 The Apex court

has also held that in order to convict a person under the offence of cheating there should be

pre-existing fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused from the beginning.18

It is clear from above submission that appellant is indeed guilty of cheating under section 415

of IPC.

14
§ 24, IPC.
15
A Pareed Pillai v. State, (1973) SC 326.
16
Line 3, Prop sheet.
17
Rajesh Bajaj v. NCT of Delhi & Ors. (1999) SC 1216; Rajesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) CriLJ
4852.
18
S.W Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2001) 10 TMI 1150.

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

2.1.1 THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 417 OF INDIAN

PENAL CODE

“Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to one year, or with fine, or both.”19

In the pertinent case, the act of the appellant clearly qualifies as cheating, thus punishment

awarded to the appellant by trial court is apt and must be upheld.

2.2. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF DISHONESTLY INDUCING DELIVERY

OF PROPERTY

Sec. 420 of IPC20 states that, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person
deceived to deliver any property shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 7
years and shall also be liable to pay fine.

It is humbly submitted that in the present case appellant by giving 100 rs. Fake note induced
Rakesh to fill the petrol by not actually paying for the petrol. In Abdul Kuddus Mustaq Shaikh
& Ors. v. State of Maharasthra,21 accused had not only possessed counterfeit currency notes
but had used those currency notes as genuine for purchase of sundry items and for obtaining
huge amount as refund in genuine currency notes from shopkeeper, he was held liable
u/s.489C, 489B and 420 of IPC22

19
§.417, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
20
Indian Penal Code, 1860
21
Abdul Kuddus Mustaq Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019(2) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 475.
22
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

CONTENTION -3: THAT THE APPELANT IS GUILTY OF OFFENCES UNDER

SECTIONS 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D & 489E:

3.1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF HAVING USED A COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY NOTE AS

GENUINE NOTE

Sec. 489B states that, whosoever uses any forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine,
knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit shall be punished
either with imprisonment for life or imprisonment extending to 10 years and shall also be
liable to pay fine.

3.1.1 THAT CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT IMPLY

KNOWLEDGE:

It is very difficult to adduce direct evidence on this aspect to ascertain mens rea or intention of
the accused and same can be inferred from circumstances and conduct of the accused and if he
is not able to give any satisfactory explanation for coming into possession of such articles, then
it may give an inference that he had intention and knowledge as contemplated u/s.489B.23
Knowledge and intention are state of mind which cannot be proved by direct evidence and
have to be inferred from attending circumstances.24

It is humbly submitted that appellant had the knowledge that his note was not genuine, which is
supported by his impatience to leave the petrol pump as soon as he can, even assaulting the
petrol pump employee in the process.25

23
Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2015(1) ILR (Kerela) 641.
24
Siridhar v. State, 2010 (6) R.C.R. 2305
25
Line 11, Prop sheet.

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

Moreover, John did not lead any defense witness but merely pleaded plea of innocence26 In
Tika Ram v. State of U.P,27 counterfeit currency notes were found in the possession of accused
and he failed to offer any valid explanation for the same, In the absence of valid explanation,
the court can presume that accused had sufficient reason to believe that those notes were
counterfeit and fake. Also in Arvind Bakelal Verma v. State of Maharashtra,28 accused did
not provide any satisfactory explanation as to how they were found in the possession of fake
notes, nor any contention raised that that they had no knowledge of said notes being fake, order
of their conviction was upheld

Moreover, In Jagannath Saha v. State of West Bengal29 The conviction of the accused was
upheld on the ground that on found in possession of fake notes, appellant did not say that he
had no knowledge that notes were counterfeit, he only said that he was innocent

3.2. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF POSSESSING FORGED OR COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY

NOTE OR BANK NOTE

Sec. 489C states that, whoever has any forged or counterfeit currency note in his possession,
knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged and he intends to use it as genuine shall be
punished with imprisonment for 7 years or with fine or both.

M Mummutti v. State of Karnatka,30 it has been held that basic test when considering a case of
possession of counterfeit currency is to see whether at a casual glance, the currency notes can
be recognized as fake, it must be shown that the counterfeit notes were of such a nature or
description that mere look at them would convince any person of average intelligence that it
was a counterfeit note.

If a person is found in the possession of counterfeit currency note, it is upto him to furnish
satisfactory explanation regarding the possession, if there is no such explanation, person found

26
Line 19, Prop sheet.
27
Tika Ram v. State of U.P, 2012(13) R.C.R. (Criminal) 622.
28
Arvind Bakelal Verma v. State of Maharashtra, 2013(12) R.C.R. (Criminal) 28.
29
Jagannath Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2020(1) AICLR.
30
M Mummutti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1705

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

in possession of such currency can be held liable.31 Where currency notes were fake even to
naked eye, paper was rough and thick and size was slightly shorter, accused must be presumed
to have knowledge that notes were not genuine.32

It is humbly submitted that in the pertinent case, Rakesh doubted the genuineness of note as it
was a bit rough and coarse33, even the police party agreed with the sales staff that note
appeared fake.34

The facts of the case are similar to that of facts in Ponnuswamy v. State,35 The accused was
alleged to have purchased paddy from a farmer by paying 130 forged currency notes of rs.100
denomination, the police also seized more forged currency notes from his possession. He
however did not have any explanation to offer as to how he came to possess the same.
Explaining the implications of not having any explanation, the Supreme Court said : Silence on
the part of appellant in such circumstances would by itself be a telling circumstance which
would weigh against him in consideration of prosecution evidence led against him., thus the
Supreme Court in that case held him guilty.

It is humbly submitted that in the present case when the accused is found in the possession of
large quantity of currency notes and when he failed to come up with an explanation that he
came in possession of such currency notes innocently or that he did not have any intention of
using those currency notes, then intention to use the counterfeit currency note as genuine can
be inferred. Moreover, in Kiran Kumar K Khanda v. State of Maharashtra,36 it has been held
that where a person is found in the possession of such notes in large number that his position
for any other purpose was inexplicable then his intention to circulate those notes in the market
can be drawn.

31
Narayan Maruti Waghmode v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 CrLJ 3318.
32
Pirthi Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 786.
33
Line 5, Prop sheet
34
Line 13, Prop sheet.
35
Ponnuswamy v. State, (1997) SCC (Cri) 217.
36
Kiran Kumar K Khanda v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 CrLJ 2748

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

3.3. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF USING DOCUMENTS RESEMBLING CURRENCY

NOTES

3.4. THAT APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF COUNTERFEITING CURRENCY NOTES

“A person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending
by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception
will thereby be practiced”37

However, punishment for counterfeiting is imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine also.38

The appellant presented a fake 100 rs. Note at the CITCO petrol pump. The petrol pump
employees compared the note with 30-40 other original notes39, confirming the veracity of their
claim that appellant’s note was fake.

Corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime, it is sufficient
if there is merely a circumstantial evidence of his connection with crime.40The facts of the
present case are similar to that of Haider Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal41 wherein a person
went to a shop to buy 5 packets of cigarettes, the shopkeeper handed over the cigarette packet
and claimed rs.250 as sale price. The person handed over 3 currency notes which were
suspected to be fake. On his arrest one 500rs. Note and 5 pieces of currency notes of rs. 100
note each were recovered from his possession. The person in that case was held liable.

37
§.28, Indian Penal Code, 1860
38
§ 489A, IPC.
39
Line 7, Prop sheet.
40
Rex v. Baskerville, 1916 (2) KB 658.
41
Haider Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal, C.R.A 726 of 2016.

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

3.5. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF POSSESSING INSTRUMENT OR MATERIAL FOR FORGING

CURRENCY NOTE

Sec 489E states that, whosoever uses any document purporting to be or resembling or nearly
resembling to bank note or currency note so as to deceive, shall be punished with fine which
may extend to one hundred rupees.

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited the

counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly prays before the Hon’ble High Court to kindly

adjudge and declare that-

1. That the appellant is guilty of cheating and dishonestly inducing property under sec.417

& 420 of Indian Penal Code

2. That the appellant is guilty of offences under section 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D & 489E

of Indian Penal Code..

3. Therefore, the present Appeal be dismissed as frivolous.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deem fit in the best interest of Justice,

Equity and Good Conscience,

And for this act of kindness, the counsel on behalf of the Respondent, as in duty bound

Shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

_______________________________

S/d

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

X
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
7TH SEMESTER AIL INTERNAL CLASS MOOT, 2020

XI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT