Christ Prosecution Surana 2017

SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY WEST ROUNDS – 2017 Page no.
TEAM CODE:
IN THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA
C.C. NO. 101 of 2017
In the matter of
STATE OF RABAT
versus
KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTIONS 170, 171B r/w 171E, 120B
r/w 34, 463 r/w 465 OF THE RABAT PENAL CODE, 1860; SECTION 8 OF
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; SECTION 123(1) AND
123(7) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951.
ON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY WEST ROUNDS – 2017 Page no. 2
THE TABLE OF CONTENTS
 THE TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………..Page No. 2
 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………….............................Page No. 3
 THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………................................Page No. 8
 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………….............................Page No. 9
 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………Page No. 11
 THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES………………………..............................Page No. 12
 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………...Page No. 13
 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………….Page No. 14
1. THE ACCUSED A1, A2, A3 AND A4 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 120B r/w 34
OF R.P.C………………………………………………………….Page no. 14
2. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171B r/w 171E OF
R.P.C AND UNDER SECTION 123(1) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE
ACT, 1951……………………………………………………………Page no. 19
3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND UNDER SECTION 123(7) OF
THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951……………..Page no. 22
4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT PENAL

CODE…………………………………………………………………Page no. 25
5. THE ACCUSED A2 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 463 r/w 465 OF THE RABAT
PENAL CODE……………………………………………………….Page no. 26
 THE PRAYER……………………………………………..................................Page No. 29
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES……………………………Page No. 30
 THE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND ANNEXURES.....................................Page No. 36

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASES:
1. Ajay Agarwal v Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 1637: (1993) 3 S.C.C. 609: (1993) Cr
LJ 2516(S.C.);
2. Ajitinder Singh v. State, 2000 CrLJ 1827.
3. Ayanur Manjunath v S. Bangarappa, A.I.R. 2003 NOC 161 (Kant): 2002 (2) ILR Kant
2642.
4. C. Subba Rao v. K. Brahamananda Reddy, A.I.R. 1967 AP 155: (1967) Cr LJ 691 (DB):
(1966) 2 Andh WR 401
5. Chaman Lal v State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2972: (2009) 11 S.C.C. 721.
6. Chandrakantha Goyal v Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli ,(1996) 1 S.C.C. 378
7. Daniel Hailey Walcott v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1968 Mad 349.
8. Devendar Pal Singh v State of NCT of Delhi, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1661: (2002) 5 S.C.C.
234: (2002) Cr LJ2034 (S.C.).
9. Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharastra, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 575; 1963 (1)
S.C. WR 178; 1964 1 Cr.LJ 437
10. Dr Vimla v. Delhi Administration, Cri LJ 434 (S.C.).
11. Firozuddin Basheeruddin v State of Kerala, (2001) 7 S.C.C. 596: (2001) S.C.C. 1341.
12. Harcharan Singh v S Sajjan Singh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 236: (1985) 1 S.C.C. 370.
13. Hari Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 146.
14. Harjit Singh v State of Punjab, (2002) 6 S.C.C. 739
15. Howkins v. Sowells Tillary Steam Coal Company Ltd.,1911 (1) WB 988);
16. Iqbal Singh v. Gurdas Singh, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 27, p 34, (1976) 3
17. Jagdev Singh v Partap Singh, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 183
18. Jeet Mohinder Singh v Harminder Singh Jassi, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 256: (1999) 8 S.C.C.
386
19. K Hasim v State of T.N, 2005 Cr LJ 143: A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 128.
20. K.R Purushotham v State, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 35: (2005) 12 S.C.C. 631.
21. Kailash Chandra Jena v. State of Orrisa, 2011 (106) ALL INDIA Cas 697;
22. Karam Singh v. Kamal Chaudhary, A.I.R. 1991 P&H 231 at 238

23. Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883: (1988) 3 S.C.C.
609.
24. Kuldeep Singh v State of Rajastan, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3649, (2000) 5 S.C.C. 7.
25. Mahant Sheo Nath v Choudhry Ranbir Singh, (1970) 3 S.C.C. 64
26. Mathew v. George, (1989) I Cr LJ 726 Ker.
27. Mohan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1366; [1964] 5 S.C.R 12;
28. Mohd Khalid v State of West Bangal, (2002) 7 S.C.C. 334;
29. Mohd Usma Mohd Hussain Maniyar v State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1981 S.C.
1062(1981) S.C. 443: (1981) Cr LJ 588 (S.C.);
30. Noor Mohd Mohd Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 885: (1970)
1 S.C.C. 696: (1971) Cr LJ 793 (S.C.);
31. Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 1 S.C.C. 322.
32. Per Garth, CJ in Riasat Ali, (1881) 7 Cal 352, 35
33. Pillai v. Dangali, A.I.R. 1942 Rang 52
34. Pratap Singh v. State, 1998 CrLJ 633 (P & H).
35. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) 1 S.C.C. 613:
2012 (10) S.C.ALE 237;
36. R v. Riley, [1896] 1 QB 321
37. Ram Narayan Popli v CBI, (2003) 3 S.C.C. 641: A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2748
38. Ramkanth Mayekar v Celine D’Silva, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 399C
39. Ravinder Singh v Janmeja Singh, A.I.R. 2000 S.C 2036 : (2000) 8 S.C.C. 191
40. Razik Ram v Chaudhary Jaswant Singh Chouhan, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 667: (1975) 4 S.C.C.
769
41. Roshan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 Lah 92 : 37 CrLJ 81: 159 IC 353.
42. S Baldev Singh Mann v Gur Charan (MLA), A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1109 at 1111: (1996) 2
S.C.C. 743
43. S Khader Sheriff v. Munnuswami, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 775
44. S Nalini v State through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2640:
(1999) 5 S.C.C. 253.
45. S Surinder Singh v Hardial Singh, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 89
46. S.Swaminathan v State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 340: (1957) Cr LJ 422 (S.C.).
47. Sanjay Gupta & anr v. State Of Maharashtra, Cri. App. no.304 of 2012

48. Sansar Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1934 All 711;

49. Sarwan Singh, Gajjan Singh v. State, 1958 MPLJ 287 : 1958 Jab LJ 726 : A.I.R. 1958
MP 230 : 1958 CrLJ 1039
50. Shankar Nanasahab Karpe v. Returning Officer, A.I.R. 1952 Bom 279
51. Shankarlal Kacharabhai v State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1260, (1952) 2 Cr IJ 226
52. Shant Kumar Jaiswal v Nand Kumar Patel, A.I.R. 2006 Chhat 18.
53. Sheopat Singh v Harish Chandra, 16 ELR 435
54. Shreekantiah v. Ramayya, (1954) 57 Bom LR 632 (S.C.)
55. State (Delhi Administration v V.C Shukla, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1382: (1980) 2 S.C.C. 665:
(1980) Cr LJ 965(S.C.)
56. State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 S.C.C. 600: 2005 S.C.C. (Cri) 1715:
2005 Cri LJ 3950: (2005) 122 DLT 194
57. State of A.P v. Kamdimalla Subbhiah, (1962) 1 S.C.R 194
58. State of Andhra Pradesh v. C Uma Maheshwara Rao, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2042; 2004 (19)
ALL IC 129; 2004 (2) CRIMES 379; 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 1276; 2004 Cr LJ 2040 (2045)
S.C.;
59. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vasudeva Rao, 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 968; 2004 Cri LJ 620
(S.C.): A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 960; 2003 (4) Cri 519(S.C.)
60. State of Kerala v P.Sugathan, (2000) 8 S.C.C. 203: (2000) S.C.C. (Cr) 1474
61. State of M.P v Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 617: 2009 Cr LJ 4436 : (2009) 3 S.C.C.
(Cri) 901
62. State of Orissa v Arjun Das Agarwal, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 154, (1999) Cr LJ 4078.
63. State of UP v Dr. Ravindra Praksh Mittal, (1992) 3 S.C.C. 300
64. Surendra Chauhan v State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1436, (2000) 4 S.C.C.
110.
65. Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1344, (2001) 3 S.C.C. 673.
66. Trilochan Singh v. Karnail Singh, A.I.R. 1968 Punj 416, pp 420,421, (1968) Cr LJ 1199
(FB).
67. V Narayanaswamy v C.P. Thirunvukkarusu, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 694 : (2000) 2 S.C.C. 294
: 2000 (2) S.C.J 503.
68. V.D. Jhingal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1966 3 S.C.R 736; A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1762; 1966
Cr LJ 1357

69. V.S. Achutanandan v P.J. Francis, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2044: (1999) 3 S.C.C. 737
70. Vijayan alias Rajan v State of Kerala, 1999 CrLJ 1636 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1086:
1999 (1) Crimes 92 (S.C.): 1999 3 S.C.C. 54
71. Vijayan v State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1086: (1999) 3 S.C.C. 54: (1999) Cr LJ
1638 (S.C.).
72. Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 S.C.C. 407
73. Vithal Tukaram More v State of Maharshtra, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2715, (2002) 7 S.C.C.
20, (2002) S.C.C. (Cr) 1555
74. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 1: JT 2013 3 (5)
S.C. 142
75. Yeshpal Mital v State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2433: (1977) 4 S.C.C. 540: 1977 Cr
LR (S.C.) 503.
76. Yeshwanth Prabhoo (Dr) v Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and ors, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 130
77. Lal Mohammad v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1931 Pat 317
78. Mahesh Chandra Prasad v. Emperor, A.I.R. (30) 1943 Pat. 393
79. Surendranath Ghose v. Emperor, 14 C.W.N 1076.
80. Sevu Vandayan v. V.S. Narayanasami Iyer, A.I.R. 1926 Mad 1078
II. BOOKS
1. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSITUTION LAW OF INDIA (4TH ed., 2003).
2. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2016).
3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8TH ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009).
4. SURENDRA MALIK AND SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON PENAL CODE, 1860
(2ND ed., Eastern Book Company, 2015)
5. SURENDRA MALIK AND SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CRPC AND
CRIMINAL TRIAL (2ND ed., Eastern Book Company, 2015)
6.DR. K. I. VIBHUTE, P S A. PILLAI CRIMINAL LAW (11TH ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur)
7. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKAR, ENCYCLOPEDIA LAW LEXICON, (Ashoka Law House, 2010)
8. JUSTICE GP SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (14TH ed., Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2016)

9. TYAGI, SURENDRA PRAKASH, CRIMINAL TRIAL (2ND ed., 1996)

10. K.D. GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (2ND ED., Universal Law
Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., 2013)
11. M.R. MALLICK, R.K. BAG, A.N. SAHA CRIMINAL REFERENCE (6TH ed., Eastern Law
House, 2009)
12. R. P KATHURIA`S, LAW OF CRIMES AND CRIMINOLOGY (3RD ed., Vinod
Publications, 2014)
13. S.C. SARKAR, P.C. SARKAR & SUDIPTO SARKAR, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE (11TH ed., Lexis Nexis, 2015)
14. K.T. THOMAS, RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (33RD ed.,
Lexis Nexis, 2016)
15. HALSBURY’S LAWS OF INDIA, CRIMINAL LAW-I, (VOL. 5(1), Lexis Nexis, 2006)
16. HALSBURY’S LAWS OF INDIA, CRIMINAL LAW-II, (VOL. 5(2), Lexis Nexis, 2006)
17. SHARMA, B.R., FORENSIC S.C.IENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION & TRIALS,
(4TH ed., 2003)
III. STATUTES
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R. All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court
Anr Another
AP Andra Pradesh
Cr.Pc Criminal Procedure Code
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
Hon’ble Honourable
PW Prosecution Witness
DW Defence Witness
IO Investigating Officer
R.P.C Rabat Penal Code
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
Supp. Supplementary
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
vol. Volume

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Prosecution begs to submit that the Hon’ble Special Court of Sessions has exclusive
jurisdiction to try the case under Section 4 r/w Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and Section 184 r/w Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, following the
Order of the Supreme Court of Rabat under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
which has been annexed as Annexure No. 12 in the written submissions.
Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Cases triable by special Judges.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in
any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3
shall be tried by special Judges only.
(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special Judge for the
area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special Judge appointed for
the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as
may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.
(3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified
in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), be charged at the same trial.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a
special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis.
Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Procedure and powers of special Judge.—
(1) A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed to him for
trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure preS.C.ribed by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) A special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been
directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a pardon to such person on
condition of his making a full and true diS.C.losure of the whole circumstances within his
knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or
abettor, in the commission thereof and any pardon so tendered shall, for the purposes of sub-
sections (1) to (5) of section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed
to have been tendered under section 307 of that Code.
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the
proceedings before a special Judge; and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Court of the
special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution
before a special Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor.
(4) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section
(3), the provisions of sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge and for the purposes of
the said provisions, a special Judge shall be deemed to be a Magistrate.

(5) A special Judge may pass upon any person convicted by him any sentence authorised by law for
the punishment of the offence of which such person is convicted.
(6) A special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under this Act, shall exercise all the powers
and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance,
1944 (Ordinance 38 of 1944).
Sec. 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Place of trial for offences triable together.— Where-
(a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at
one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of section 219, section 220 or
section 221, or
(b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be charged
with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of section 223,
The offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any
of the offences.
Sec.209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Commitment of case to Court of Session when
offence is triable exclusively by it –
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by
the Court of Session, he shall-
a. commit the case to the Court of Session;
b. subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during
and until the conclusion of, the trail;
c. send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to
produced in evidence;
d. notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.
Sec.406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and
appeals.—
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is
expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred
from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High
Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High
Court. 145
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General
of Rabat or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which
shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of Rabat or the Advocate-General of
the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed,
the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order
the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application
such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the
circumstances of the case.

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mittal Nadu is a state in the Union of Rabat. It suffers from the national ailment of corruption.
It was ruled by MDS party with its symbol as two buds. After the death of the ruling lady Chief
Minister, Ms Vijaya, the party split into two, they being MDS(U) led by Ulaganathan Palani
Selvam and MDS(K) led by Ms Kalavathy. Mr Kindran was made the Deputy General
Secretary. The P.K. Nagar Constituency Assembly seat of Ms. Vijaya fell vacant.
2. It became a challenged for both the ruling and opposition parties to win the seat to prove their
supremacy and popularity. There was internal political turmoil within the MDS party, as both
the MDS factions wanted to contest in the election and have the two-bud symbol. Kindran filed
nomination, MDS(U) also fielded Mr Shoodan as their candidate. This led to the freezing of
the two buds symbol by the Election Commission of Rabat and the factions were allotted Watter
Bottle and Tiffin Box to MDS(K) and MDS(U) respectively.
3. Mr Kindran was very adamant on winning the election by hook or crook. A lot of evidence
pointed at Kindran for acts of money laundering, bribery and threats to various people in
authority and government servants. He took help of his election agent one Mr Kushal, to bribe
the Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat. They were also helped by the Finanacial Planner,
Mr Nagarjun and Mr Harish for hatching this conspiracy. In the meantime, there was constant
news in the media that the political party was involved in bribing the voters by issuing tokens
along with pamphlets, these tokens could be used to initiate a Unified Payment Interface.
4. Soon, Mr Rakshab’s house was raided by the IT department, a lot of cash and a Diary consisting
the name of seven ministers, their signatures and specific information about the money
possessed by them was seized. The papers leaked to the media purportedly show the Kalavathy-
led MDS faction giving more than Rs. 90 crores to seven ministers for distribution among P K
Nagar voters and that they were allegedly given a target of around 2,30,000 voters to bribe. It
was also stated by the Media that the Kalavathy faction promised every voter with Rs. 5000.
5. The Bye-election was countermanded which was S.C.heduled for April 12th 2017. Kushal was
arrested at Hilda on April 15th. He was said to be in possession of Rs 2 crores and 30,000
bitcoins at the time of arrest. Nagarjuna and Kindran were arrested in Hilda on April 17th.

THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES
1. Kindran (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.1’) has been charged under Section 170 ,120B r/w
34, 171B r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
2. Kushal (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.2’) has been charged under Section 120B r/w 34,
171B r/w 171E, 463 r/w 465 of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act,
1951.
3. Nagarjun (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.3’) has been charged under Section 120 B r/w
Section 34 of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.
4. Harish (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.4’) has been charged under Section 120 B r/w
Section 34 of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE ACCUSED A1, A2, A3 AND A4 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 120B r/w 34 OF
RABAT PENAL CODE
Kindran, Kushal, Nagarjun and Harish with a common intention to get Kindran Elected to the
State Assembly hatched a Criminal Conspiracy which has been proved and established through
various witnesses and through tapped telephonic conversations amongst the accused.
2. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171B r/w 171E OF R.P.C
AND UNDER SECTION 123(1) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951
Kindran and Kushal have bribed the voters in the upcoming bye-elections to PK Nagar
Constituency Assembly Seat. The Evidence for the same has been placed before this Court through
various documents seized and recovered at various IT raids and searches.
3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE PREVENTION

OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND UNDER SECTION 123(7) OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951
Kindran and Kushal have attempted to bribe the Election Commissioner for the allotment of the
Two Budd symbol in the upcoming bye-elections to PK Nagar Constituency Assembly Seat. The
Evidence for the same has been placed before this Court through various documents seized and
recovered and through the witness testimony of the Chief Election Commissioner himself.
4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT PENAL CODE
Kindran has impersonated as the Chief Election Commissioner by making a telephonic

Conversation to the Chief Electoral Officer of Mittal Nadu, directing him about the defreezing of
the Two Budd symbol and allotting the same to MDS(K) party in the upcoming bye-elections to
PK Nagar Constituency Assembly Seat. The evidence for the same has been established through
the tapped telephonic conversation and by matching the voice by the Voice Analysis Expert.
5. THE ACCUSED A2 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 463 r/w465 OF RABAT PENAL CODE
Kushal, after the failed attempt to bribe the Chief Election Commissioner, forged the signature of
the Chief Election Commissioner along with Kindran and Couriered it to the Chief Electoral
Officer of Mittal Nadu. The evidence for the same has been established through Handwriting
Expert.

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE ACCUSED A1, A2, A3 AND A4 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 120B r/w 34 OF
R.P.C
¶1. The Supreme Court has opined that where a number of offences are committed by several
persons in pursuance of a conspiracy it is usual to charge them with those offences as well as with
the offence of conspiracy to commit those offences1. To prove the charge of conspiracy It is not
necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution
to prove the charge of conspiracy. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the
common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the
consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible.
¶2. The unlawful agreement which results to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may
be inherent in or inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but
maybe reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. It has been said
that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or
mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a
conspiracy, any act done by any of them in pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law,
the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible thereof.
¶3. A man may join conspiracy by word or deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy
requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an
overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty and one who tacitly consents to the object of
a conspiracy and goes along with the other, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy
into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime. The conspiracy may be
a general one and a smaller one which may develop in successive stages. It is an unlawful
agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist/essence of the crime of conspiracy. In
order to determine whether the conspiracy was hatched, the court is required to view the entire
agreement and to find out as in fact what the conspirators intended to do2
1
State of A.P v. Kamdimalla Subbhiah, (1962) 1 S.C.R 194
2
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v State of Maharashtra (2013) 12 S.C.C. 1: JT 2013 3 (5) S.C. 142

¶4. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering
enterprise possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the
ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment.
¶5. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and
whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. Offences of
criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy
consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an
unlawful act by unlawful means3 .
¶6. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action in as much as so long a crime is generated in the
mind of the accused, it does not become punishable. What is necessary is not thoughts, which may
even be criminal in character, often involuntarily but offence would be said to have been
committed thereunder only when that take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be
done an illegal act or an act which although not illegal by illegal means and then if nothing further
is done the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy4
Therefore,
1. An agreement between two or more persons
2. The agreement must relate to doing or causing to done either
I. An illegal act; or
II. An act which in not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
¶7. The court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or
they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The from does not make them conspirators
but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement
is required to be established.
Therefore, the Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy which are satisfied in this case are:
I. An Object to be accomplished
II. A plan or Scheme embodying means to accomplish that object
3
Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v State of Gujarat and Another (2013) 1 S.C.C. 613: 2012 (10) S.C.ALE 237;
4
Ram Narayan Popli v CBI, (2003) 3 S.C.C. 641: A.I.R 2003 S.C. 2748: 2003 (1) S.C.R. 119.
State of M.P v Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 617: 2009 Cr LJ 4436 : (2009) 3 S.C.C. (Cri) 901

III. An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby,
they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object
by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and
IV. In the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act5 .
¶8. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported
to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy6 The offence of criminal conspiracy is complete
as soon as two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or a legal act by
illegal means.
¶9. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not only the
execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the
same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect
an unlawful purpose. It is not necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication
with each other7.
¶10. To constitute a conspiracy meeting of mind of two persons for doing the act, is the first and
primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators should know each other in detail.
Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of
each and every conspirators act8. No overt act is necessary9. When two agree to carry it into
effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise,
actus contra actum, capable of being enforced if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for
use of criminal means.
¶11. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal conduct, not only the
execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the
same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect
an unlawful purpose. It is not necessary that each conspirator should have been in communication
with each other.
5
Mohd Khalid v State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 S.C.C. 334; Chaman Lal v State of Punjab, A.I.R 2009 S.C. 2972:
(2009) 11 S.C.C. 721.
6
Yeshpal Mital v State of Punjab, A.I.R 1977 S.C. 2433: (1977) 4 S.C.C. 540: 1977 Cr LR (S.C.) 503.
7
Chaman Lal v State of Punjab, A.I.R 2009 S.C.2972: (2009) 11S.C.C. 721: 2010 1 S.C.C. Cri 159.
8
K.R Purushotham v State, A.I.R 2006 S.C. 35: (2005) 12 S.C.C. 631.
9
K Hasim v State of T.N, 2005 Cr LJ 143: A.I.R 2005 S.C. 128.

¶12. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt
illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of the conspiracy, all of them will
be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission
of those offences10.
¶13. Actual meeting of two or more persons need not be proved as evidence as to transmission of
thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient11 . Having regard to the nature of the
offence, such a meeting of minds of the conspirators has to be inferred is possible. The
circumstances must give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two
12
or more persons to commit an offence . It may be inferred from utterances, writings, acts,
omissions and conduct of the parties to the conspiracy13 .
¶14. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even
unknown to one person amongst the conspirators14. The prosecution need not necessarily or
expressly prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act or
a legal act by illegal means. The agreement may be proved by necessary implication i or inference
drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of their common
design.
¶15. Regarding admissibility of evidence; loosened standards prevail in a conspiracy trial 15 . Since
conspiracies are not hatched in the open and by their nature are secretly planned, direct evidence
in proof of conspiracy is seldom available. Consequently, it is not always possible to give
affirmative evidence about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons
who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the conspirators set
before themselves as the object of the conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of the
conspiracy is to be carried out, all of which is necessarily a matter of inference16.
10
S Nalini v State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT, A.I.R 1999 S.C. 2640: (1999) 5 S.C.C. 253.
11
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R 1988 S.C. 1883: (1988) 3 S.C.C. 609.
12
State (Delhi Administration v V.C Shukla, A.I.R 1980 S.C. 1382: (1980) 2 S.C.C. 665: (1980) Cr LJ 965(S.C.)
13
Ajay Agarwal v Union of India, A.I.R 1993 S.C. 1637: (1993) 3 S.C.C. 609: (1993) Cr LJ 2516(S.C.);
14
S Nalini v State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT A.I.R 1999 S.C. 2640 paras 656 and 663;
Kuldeep Singh v State of Rajastan, A.I.R 2000 S.C. 3649, (2000) 5 S.C.C. 7.
15
Mohd Khalid v State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 S.C.C. 334; Mohd Usma Mohd Hussain Maniyar v State of
Maharashtra, A.I.R 1981 S.C. 1062(1981) S.C. 443: (1981) Cr LJ 588 (S.C.); Devendar Pal Singh v State of NCT of
Delhi, A.I.R 2002 S.C. 1661: (2002) 5 S.C.C. 234: (2002) Cr LJ2034 (S.C.).
16
Mohd Khalid v State of West Bangal, (2002) 7 S.C.C. 334; Noor Mohd Mohd Yusuf Momin v State of Maharashtra,
A.I.R 1971 S.C. 885: (1970) 1 S.C.C. 696: (1971) Cr LJ 793 (S.C.); Firozuddin Basheeruddin v State of Kerala,
(2001) 7 S.C.C. 596: (2001) S.C.C. 1341.

¶16. There must be some material before the court from which it would be reasonable to establish
a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy. The
inferences are normally deduced from the act of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common
between the conspirators17 or of apparent criminal purpose common between them18
¶17. It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence, and therefore,
from established facts inferences could be drawn but there must be some material from which it
would be reasonable to establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act pursuant
to that conspiracy.19 Corroboration of evidence need not be of a kind which proves the offence
against the accused. It is sufficient if it connects the accused with the crime20. The conduct of the
accused is a circumstance to be taken into consideration to give a finding on whether two or more
persons conspired together.
¶18. Common intention is a state of mind of an accused which may be inferred objectively from
his conduct displayed in the course of commission of the crime as also prior and subsequent
attendant circumstances21 . Two postulates are indispensable to attract the said provision22 ,
1. The criminal act, consisting of a series of acts, must have been done, not by one person,
but more than one person; and
2. Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal
offence must have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such person.
¶19. The essence of this provision, is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating
in the criminal action, which consensus maybe developed on the spot and thereby intended by all
of them 23. For applying the said provision, it is not necessary to show some overt act on the part
of the accused for the provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish
between, acts of individual, members of a part who act in furtherance of the common intention of
all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them24 .
17
Vijayan v State of Kerala, A.I.R 1999 S.C. 1086: (1999) 3 S.C.C. 54: (1999) Cr LJ 1638 (S.C.).
18
State of Kerala v P.Sugathan, (2000) 8 S.C.C. 203: (2000) S.C.C. (Cr) 1474
19
Vijayan alias Rajan v State of Kerala, 1999 CrLJ 1636 (S.C.): A.I.R 1999 S.C. 1086: 1999 3 S.C.C. 54
20
S.Swaminathan v State of Madras, A.I.R 1957 S.C. 340: (1957) Cr LJ 422 (S.C.).
21
Harjit Singh v State of Punjab, (2002) 6 S.C.C. 739
22
Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R 2001 S.C. 1344, (2001) 3 S.C.C. 673.
23
Surendra Chauhan v State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R 2000 S.C. 1436, (2000) 4 S.C.C. 110.
24
Hari Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 146.

¶20. The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the person must be
physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be present in the actual
room; he can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any
approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their eS.C.ape, but he must
be physically present at the S.C.ene of the occurrence and must actually participate in the
commission of the offence in some way or the other at the time crime is actually being
committed.25
¶21. It is settled position of law that the Section 34 of R.P.C does not create a distinct offence and
it is by the participation of the accused that the intention of committing a crime is established and
the said provision is attracted26 . Section 34 of R.P.C lays down the principal of constructive
liability. The essence of section 34 of R.P.C is a simultaneous consensus of the minds of the
persons participating in criminal action to bring about a particular result. Section 34 of R.P.C
stipulates that the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention. In fact, the
section is intended to cover a case where a number of persons act together and on the facts of the
case it is not possible for the prosecution to prove as to which of the persons who acted together
27
actually committed the crime , which the prosecution has established through circumstantial
evidence in the instant case.
¶22. The accused, in furtherance of their common intention, may commit a criminal act injuring
an unconnected or innocent person under a mistaken identity. The question is not whether the
committing of a mistake was a part of the common intention, but whether the criminal act
committed was done in furtherance of the common intention, even though someone else was
affected28.
2. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171B r/w 171E OF
R.P.C AND UNDER SECTION 123(1) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT,
1951
¶23. Election is not merely the ultimate decision or the ultimate result. Election is every stage from
the time the notification is issued till the result is declared, and even perhaps if there is an election
25
Shreekantiah v. Ramayya, (1954) 57 Bom LR 632 (S.C.)
26
State of Orissa v Arjun Das Agarwal, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 154, (1999) Cr LJ 4078.
27
Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 S.C.C. 407
28
Shankarlal Kacharabhai v State of Gujarat A.I.R 1965 S.C. 1260, (1952) 2 Cr IJ 226

petition, till the result is declared, and even perhaps if there is an election petition, till the decision
of the Election Tribunal. It is a whole continuous integrated proceeding and every aspect of it and
every stage of it and every step taken in it is a part of the election.29
¶24. The question as to when a person becomes a candidate must be decided on the language of
Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. Under that section, the candidature
commences when the person begins to hold himself out as a prospective candidate. The
determining factor, therefore, is the decision of the candidate himself, and not the act of other
persons or bodies adopting him as their candidate.30 When, therefore, a question arises under
Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 as to whether a person had become a
candidate at a given point of time, what has to be seen is whether at that time he had clearly and
unambiguously declared his intention to stand as a candidate, so that it could be said of him that
he had held himself out as a prospective candidate. That he has merely formed an intention to
stand for election is not sufficient to make him a prospective candidate, because the essence of the
matter is that he should hold himself out as a prospective candidate. That can only be possible if
he communicates such intention to the outside world by a declaration or conduct from which it
could be inferred that he intends to stand as a candidate. 31
¶25. The act amounting to a corrupt practice must be done by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent. The word ‘agent, has been
defined by explanation (1) to s 123 of the 1951 Act to mean an election agent, a polling agent and
any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent
of the candidate. Obviously, the election agent and the polling agent here, mean the persons
appointed by the candidate as his election agent under section 40 and polling agent under section
4632.
¶26. The expression ‘any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the
election with the consent of the candidate has been explained by the Supreme Court in
Chandrakantha Goyal v Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli33. The apex court has observed that an
agent is ordinarily a person authorised by a candidate to act on his behalf on a general authority
conferred on him by the candidate; ordinarily the agent is the understudy of the candidate and has
29
Shankar Nanasahab Karpe v. Returning Officer A.I.R 1952 Bom 279
30
S Khader Sheriff v. Munnuswami A.I.R 1955 S.C. 775
32
A.I.R 1980 S.C. 701
33
(1996) 1 S.C.C. 378

to act under the instructions given to him, being under his control. A leader of a political party is
not necessarily an agent of every candidate of that party; he does not act under instructions of a
candidate nor is he under the candidate’s control. The candidate is held to be bound by the acts of
his agent because of the authority given by the candidate to perform the act on his behalf. There
is no such relationship between the candidate and the leader, in the abstract merely because he is
the leader of the party. The consent of the candidate cannot be implied from the mere fact that the
act was done by the leader of his political party. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court in Ramesh Yeshwanth Prabhoo (Dr) v Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and ors34 and a
catena of other cases.
¶27. It may be difficult to draw an inference of consent by the candidate in relation to some stray
act; but where certain activity was spread over several days and the agents and workers of the
candidate were involved, the inference of consent by the candidate was held to be reasonable in
Sheopat Singh v Harish Chandra35. In this case, there was regular transportation of voters by
the candidate’s agents to polling stations on several days of poll and the candidate did not prohibit
it, though it came to his knowledge.
¶28. Consent is the life-line to link up the candidate with the action of other persons36. But the
requisite consent of the candidate cannot be assumed merely from the fact that the candidate
belongs to the same political party of which the wrongdoer was a leader, since there can be no
presumption in law that there is consent of every candidate of the political party for every act that
is done by every acknowledged leader of the party. The leader of the political party is not an agent
of the candidate and the consent of the candidate must be proved for any wrong act committed by
the leader of his political party37. Such consent can however, be applied more readily from
circumstances such as the personal presence of the candidate at the time and place where an
offending speech is made by the party leader and without any protest from the candidate38.
¶29. Due proof of a simple act of bribery by or with the knowledge and consent of the candidate
or by his agents, however insignificant that act may be, is sufficient to invalidate the election. The
charge of bribery is indeed a serious criminal charge. It falls within the ambit of Section 171B of
the Rabat Penal Code, and is a criminal offence. If that be so, it must follow that clear and
34
1996 1 S.C.C. 130
35
16 ELR 435 (S.C.)
36
Surinder Singh v Hardial Singh A.I.R 1985 S.C. 89
37
Ramkanth Mayekar v Celine D’Silva 1996 1S.C.C. 399
38
Chandrakantha Goyal v Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli 1996 1 S.C.C. 378

unequivocal proof is required before a case of bribery is held to be established. It should satisfy
the test applied to the proof of offences in criminal cases. The court must be satisfied beyond all
reasonable doubt that the said bribery has been proved.39 Suspicion is not sufficient, 40
and the
confession of the person, alleged to have been bribed, is not conclusive.41It is not safe to base a
finding of bribery on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice except possibly, in very
exceptional circumstances.
¶30. It is well settled that a charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge.
The commission of a corrupt practice entails serious penal consequences. It not only vitiates the
election of the candidate concerned but also disqualifies him from taking part in elections for a
considerably a long time. Thus, the trial of an election petition being in the nature of an accusation,
bearing the indelible stamp of quasi criminal action, the standard of proof is the same as in a
criminal court42.
¶31. For finding out whether a particular promise or act amounts to gratification, two tests have to
be satisfied. First, that the gratification must be something which is calculated to satisfy a person’s
aim, object or desire, and secondly, such a gratification must be of some value through it need not
be something estimable in terms of money.43The word ‘gratification’ should be deemed to refer
only to cases where a gift is made of something which gives a material advantage to the recipient.44
It is not, however, necessary that the gratification offered should be of value only to the person to
whom it is offered, and not to anybody else.45 Whether the object, for which gratification has been
paid, has been achieved or not is immaterial.46
3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND UNDER SECTION 123(7) OF THE
REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951
¶32. In order to constitute an offence under section 8, three things are essential:
39
C. Subba Rao v. K. Brahamananda Reddy A.I.R 1967 AP 155, (1967) Cr LJ 691 (DB), (1966) 2 Andh WR 401
40
Re Lichfield (1869) 1 OM &H 22, p 38
41
Re Ipswich 1857 Wolf &D 173, p 178
42
Razik Ram v Chaudhary Jaswant Singh Chouhan A.I.R 1975 S.C. 667 : (1975) 4 S.C.C. 769
43
Mohan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal A.I.R 1964 S.C. 1366, p 1369, [1964] 5 S.C.R 12; Trilochan Singh v. Karnail Singh
A.I.R 1968 Punj 416, pp 420,421, (1968) Cr LJ 1199 (FB).
44
Iqbal Singh v. Gurdas Singh A.I.R 1976 S.C. 27, p 34, (1976) 3 S.C.C. 284
45
Trilochan Singh v. Karnail Singh A.I.R 1968 Punj 416, pp 420,421, (1968) Cr LJ 1199 (FB).
46
Pillai v. Dangali A.I.R 1942 Rang 52, pp 54,55

1) solicitation or offer or receipt or any gratification
2) such gratification must have been asked for, offered, or paid as a motive or reward for
inducing, by illegal or corrupt means, public servant.
3) The public servant must do any act or forebear to do an act, render or attempt to render any
service or disservice to some person with central or state government or with any public
servant or named otherwise.
¶33. In B Chinnaswamy Iyenger47, the court held that without a finding that the money was
accepted or obtained by the accuse as a motive or a reward for bribing the sub judge, the accused
could not be convicted merely because it was found that a certain sum of money was handed over
to him to be delivered by him as a bribe to the Judge.
¶34. A person who merely act as a channel between the bribe giver ad the receiver public servant
without any gain to himself does not come with the section for he has received nothing by inducing
by corrupt or illegal means the public servant. It is the only the person who with a view to corrupt
public servant obtains himself a gratification in order to corrupt a public servant, that would come
within this section. Generally, it is quite possible that the public servant concerned is a privy to
such transaction. If a person without previous consent with the public servant believes that he may
be able to induce the public servant by corrupt means, would be guilty under this section, even
though the public servant remains uncorrupted.
¶35. Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts by inferring the
existence of a fact from another, the court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning which
the mind of a prudent mind would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final
conclusion to be drawn from the other facts. But it could be as well as be final if it remains
undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule indicating the stage of shifting the
burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts the court can draw an inference and that would remain
until such inference is either disproved or dispelled.48
¶36. The Supreme Court while explaining the meaning of expression the “acceptance or agreed to
accuse has held that the expressions “may presume” and “shall presume “are defined in Sec 4 of
47
8 IC Mad 668
48
State of Andhra Pradesh v. C Uma Maheshwara Rao A.I.R 2004 S.C. 2042; 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 1276; 2004 Cr LJ
2040 (2045) S.C.; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vasudeva Rao 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 968; 2004 Cri LJ 620 (S.C.): A.I.R
2004 S.C. 960;

the Rabat Evidence Act 1872 (in short the ‘evidence act’). The presumptions falling under the
former category are compendiously are known as “factual presumptions “or “diS.C.retionary
presumptions” and those falling under the latter as “legal presumptions” or “compulsory
presumptions”. When the expression “shall be presumed” is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act,
it must have the same import of compulsion.
¶37. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under section 20 is that during trial
it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section
does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only
requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept
gratification.
¶38. It is well settled that an allegation of corrupt practices within the meaning of sub-sections (1)
to (8) of Section 123 of the Act, made in the election petition are regarded quasi-criminal in nature
requiring a strict proof of the same for the consequences are not only very serious but also penal
in nature. It may be pointed out that on the proof of any of the corrupt practices as alleged in the
election petition it is not only the election of the returned candidate that is declared void and set
aside but besides the disqualification of the returned candidate, the candidate himself or his agent
ir any other person, as the case may be, if found to have committed corrupt practice may be
punished with imprisonment under Section 135-A of the Act.
¶39. In Harcharan Singh V S Sajjan Singh49 it was held that while insisting on standard of strict
proof, the court should not extend or stretch this doctrine to such an extreme extent as to make it
well-nigh impossible to prove an allegation of corrupt practice. Such an approach would defeat
and frustrate the very laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act in maintaining the purity of
elections.
¶40. Reading of the provisions of Section 123(7) and the ground of committing corrupt practice,
it may be stated that the requirement of law is not that such help sought being a corrupt practice
must effect the result of the election. Rather the true interpretation is that the help was sought
towards the furtherance of election prospects i.e. it was not completion of the object but only in
the direction of the object was pointed out. It was, therefor, not necessary for the petitioner to
plead in what manner in fact the alleged help sought by the respondent by committing corrupt
practice affected the result. It was not necessary for the petitioner to plead that the persons present
49
A.I.R 1985 S.C. 236 at 250: (1985) 1 S.C.C. 370.

in the said meeting convened in the said meeting convened by the governor on his call either
factually supported the respondent in procuring votes or themselves voted in his favour50
¶41. Analyzing the provisions of s 123(7), the Supreme Court observed in Hardwari Lal v Kanwal
Singh51 , that the corrupt practice of seeking assistance of government servant for the furtherance
of the prospects of a candidate’s election can fall under four different heads namely: (a) obtaining
of assistance; (b) procuring of assistance; (c) abetting to obtain or procure the assistance; and (d)
attempting to obtain or procure the assistance. Any such thing should be done by the candidate or
his election agent and in relation to a person n service of the government who falls within any
classes mentioned in that section. The documents annexed and submitted are convincing evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that the candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of
the candidate or his agent, has procured or attempted to assistance from the stated persons in the
section which assistance has a direct nexus to further the prospects of election
4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT PENAL

CODE
¶42. To attract Section 170, R.P.C. two ingredients are required; (i) such person who pretends to
hold any office as a public servant of falsely impersonating any other person holding such office
and (ii) any person in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such
office.52 The person personating must do or attempt to do some act under colour of the office of
the public servant whom he personates. Thus, when a C.I.D. constable pretending to be Police
Officer demanded the production of the Rahdari papers from people who had cattle with them, it
was held that he was guilty under Section 170, R.P.C.53
¶43. There is a difference between pretending to be a particular person and pretending to hold a
particular office. When the offence itself is of pretending to hold a particular office there is no
reason for saying that the legislature meant to distinguish between a pretense to hold a particular
existing office and a pretense to hold a particular non-existing office and to penalise the former
and not the latter. So the particular office which an accused pretends to hold must exist. There can
certainly be a particular office though it does not exist. The accused personating as lamberdar
50
Karam Singh v. Kamal Chaudhary A.I.R 1991 P&H 231 at 238
51
A.I.R 1972 S.C. 515.
52
Ajitinder Singh v. State 2000 CrLJ 1827.
53
Roshan v. Emperor, A.I.R 1935 Lah92 : 37 CrLJ 81: 159 IC 353.

identified persons in different sale deed and altered certain sureties also. It was held that offence
under section 170 was made out as he had acted under colour of office as lamberdar.54
¶44. It is not necessary that the act done or attempted to be done should be such an act as might
legally be done by the public servant personated. The accused was arrested when he was
demanding one anna’s worth of fruit from a fruit-seller for one piece on the representation that he
was a head constable, which in fact he was not. It was held that if he pretended to be a police-
officer and tried as such police-officer to extort money or things from a fruit-seller, he was guilty
of an offence under this section.55 A person who poses as a Government servant and by so obtain
benefits of another services which he would not otherwise have obtained and which the other
person was bound to hand over on demand by a Government officer, commits an offence under
this section.56
¶45. Cheating by personation (Section 419, R.P.C.) is an offence of a general character under
which a person may pretend to be anyone other than what he really is. But cheating by pretending
to be a public servant (Section 170) is a specific offence where one pretends to be a public servant.
It has all ingredients of cheating by personation under Section 419. But when the personation is
that of a public servant and the pretender does some act, then the offence becomes one under
Section 170. 57
5. THE ACCUSED A2 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 463 r/w 465 OF THE RABAT
PENAL CODE
¶46. Black’s law dictionary defines forgery as “the falsely making or materially altering, with
intent to defraud, any writing which, if genuine, might apparently be of legal efficacy or title
foundation of a legal liability”.58 It is to be noted that essential elements to be satisfied to constitute
the offense of forgery are proof that the document or part of the document has been falsified
dishonestly or fraudulently .Furthermore, an intent of the accused (a) to cause damage or injury to
i) public, or ii) any person; or (b) to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract (c)
54
Pratap Singh v. State, 1998 CrLJ 633 (P & H).
55
Aziz-ud-din. (1904) All 294.
56
Bashirullakhan , (1942) Nag 484.
57
Sarwan Singh, Gajjan Singh v. State, 1958 MPLJ 287 : 1958 Jab LJ 726 : A.I.R 1958 MP 230 : 1958 CrLJ 1039.
58
Henry Campbell Black, „Black‟s Law Dictionary‟, (6th Edition 1990), West Publishing Company, St. Paul

to commit fraud or so that fraud may be committed must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by
the prosecution.
¶47. A person is said to be liable for forgery when he dishonestly of fraudulently manipulates any
valid document or any electronic record. Forgery is the making of a false instrument to deceive59.
The offence of forgery is the making of a false document with the criminal intention to cause
damage to any person60.To constitute the offence of forgery the simple making of a ‘false
document’ is sufficient, with the intention that it should injure other61. Intention is the necessary
requirement for the offence of forgery. In order for the offense of forgery to be constituted, the
document involved must be false. Falsity consists in the document, or part of a document, being
signed or sealed with the name or seal of a person who did not in fact sign or seal it.62 The Supreme
Court held that the first essential of the offence of forgery is the making of false document with
intent to cause damage to injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community.63 It
is sufficient that there should be the intention of causing it64. Where there is an intention to deceive
and by means of the deceit to obtain an advantage there is a fraud, and if a document is fabricated
with such intent is a forgery65. To constitute the offence of forgery, dishonest intention is a must66
whoever makes a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to any person; or with
intent to commit fraud is said to commit forgery.67
¶48. A false document made wholly or in part by forgery is designated “a forged document”. The
person who makes a false document commits forgery68.It is also essential that the false document
or the false electronic record, when made, must either appear on its face to be, or be in fact one,
which, if true, would possess some legal validity. In other words, the document must be legally
capable of effectuating the fraud intended.69
¶49. The essential ingredient for the offence of forgery is that a false document or electronic record
must be made. Such a document must be used to either cause damage to a person, or support any
claim or title, or, cause any person to part with property or cause any person to enter into a contract
59
R v. Riley [1896] 1 QB 321
60
P.S.A Pillai, Criminal Law, Edited by Dr.K I Vibhute, 12th Ed (2014
61
Feda Hossein (1881) 10 CLR 184
62
Per Garth, CJ in Riasat Ali (1881) 7 Cal 352, 35
63
Ram Narayan v CBO (2003)3 S.C.C. 641
64
Chunku A.I.R 1931 All 258
65
Per Bannerji, J, in Muhammad Saeed Khan (1898) 21 All 113, 115
66
Sanjay Gupta & anr v. State Of Maharashtra, Cri. App. no.304 of 2012
67
Daniel Hailey Walcott v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1968 Mad 349.
68
Dr Vimla v. Delhi Administration, Cri LJ 434 (S.C.).
69
Mathew v. George, (1989) I Cr LJ 726 (Ker

or commit fraud70. Forgery consists in making alteration to the document in the absence of the real
executants and without his knowledge and concurrence71. If a man intends to gain an unfair
advantage by deceitful means and uses a false document for that purpose, his conduct is
fraudulent.72
¶50. For the purpose of forgery, it is sufficient to show that there is a criminal intention to cause
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another. To constitute ‘wrongful gain’ and
‘wrongful loss’, there must be an unlawful acquisition by unlawful means. A dishonest intention
may be presumed only if an unlawful act is done, or if a lawful act is done by unlawful means73.
To convert an illegal or doubtful claim into a legal one amounts to dishonest intention, which
subsequently amounts to forgery74.
70
Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 1 S.C.C. 322.
71
Surendranath Ghose v. Emperor, 14 C.W.N 1076.
72
Sevu Vandayan v. V.S. Narayanasami Iyer, A.I.R. 1926 Mad 1078
73
Sansar Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R 1934 All 711; Lal Mohammad v. Emperor, A.I.R 1931 Pat 317
74
Mahesh Chandra Prasad v. Emperor, A.I.R (30) 1943 Pat. 393

THE PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, Issues raised, Arguments advanced and Authorities
cited, may this Honourable Special Sessions Court be pleased:
a. Convict Kindran (‘Accused no.1’) under Section 170 ,120B r/w 34, 171B r/w 171E of
Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
b. Convict Kushal (‘Accused no.2’) under Section 120B r/w 34, 171B r/w 171E, 463 r/w 465
of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
c. Convict Nagarjun (‘Accused no.3’) under Section 120 B r/w Section 34 of the Rabat Penal
Code, 1860.
d. Convict Harish (‘Accused no.4’) under Section 120 B r/w Section 34 of the Rabat Penal
Code, 1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Rabat S/d_____________ S/d_____________
Date: 6/09/2017 COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES
Section 34 of R.P.C: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention—

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each
of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 120A of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Criminal Conspiracy-
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, —
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:
Provided, that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation — It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or
is merely incidental to that object.
Section 120B of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where
no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished
in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either deS.C.ription for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Section 170 of Rabat Penal Code: Personating a public servant—

Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold
such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed
character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either deS.C.ription for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
Section 171B of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Bribery-
(1) Whoever—(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other
person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having
exercised any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward
for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other
person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery: Provided
that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be
an offence under this section.
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall
be deemed to give a gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed
to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he
does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have
accepted the gratification as a reward
Section 171E of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for bribery-
Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either
deS.C.ription for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that
bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
Explanation—“Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food,
drink, entertainment, or provision.

Section 171C of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Undue influence at elections—
(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral
right commits the offence of undue influence at an election.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever— (a) threatens
any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of
any kind, or (b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person
in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of
spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such
candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).
(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action or the mere exercise or a legal
right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference
within the meaning of this section.
Section 171D of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Personation at elections —
Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper on votes in the name of any other person,
whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies
at the same election for a voting paper in his own name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts
to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence of personation at an
election.
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has been authorised to vote as
proxy for an elector under any law for the time being in force in so far as he votes as a proxy for
such elector.
Section 171F of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for undue influence or personation at an
election —
Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished
with imprisonment of either deS.C.ription for a term which may extend to one year or with fine,
or with both.

Section 463 of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Forgery—
Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic
record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any
claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Section 465 of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for forgery—
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either deS.C.ription for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Taking gratification, in order, by

corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant—
Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for
himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by
corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to
do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour
or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any
person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature
of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause
(c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 123(1) of The Representation of People Act, 1951: Corrupt practices -

The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:—
(1) "Bribery", that is to say—
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent
of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with
the object, directly or indirectly of inducing—

(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a
candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to—
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having
withdrawn his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a
reward—
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing
from being, a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining
from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting,
or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
Explanation— For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to
pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of
entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any
expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account
of election expenses referred to in section 78.
Section 123(7) of The Representation of People Act, 1951: Corrupt practices -

(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or
his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any
assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that
candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any
of the following classes, namely:—
(a) gazetted officers;
(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;
(c) members of the armed forces of the Union;
(d) members of the police forces;
(e) excise officers;
(f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars,
patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who

are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected
by them but who do not diS.C.harge any police functions; and
(g) such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be preS.C.ribed:
Provided that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the
classes aforesaid, in the diS.C.harge or purported diS.C.harge of his official duty, makes any
arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to,
any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of /the candidate or his
election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason),
such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the
furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election.

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND ANNEXURES
1. FIR -1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37
2. FIR – 2------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40
3. Non-Cognizable Report----------------------------------------------------------------- 43
4. IT Raid Warrant---------------------------------------------------------------------------46
5. IT Raid Seizure Memo-------------------------------------------------------------------48
6. Kushal - Arrest Warrant----------------------------------------------------------------- 50
7. Kushal – Search Warrant-----------------------------------------------------------------51
8. Kushal – Panchanama-------------------------------------------------------------------- 52
9. Kushal – Seizure Memo------------------------------------------------------------------ 54
10. Nagarjun- Arrest Warrant---------------------------------------------------------------- 56
11. Harish – Arrest Warrant------------------------------------------------------------------ 57
12. 406 Order by the Supreme Court--------------------------------------------------------58
13. Final report of Investigation Officer/Chargesheet------------------------------------ 63
14. Home Secretary Order-------------------------------------------------------------------- 67
15. Phone Conversation transcripts--------------------------------------------------------- 68
16. 65B Certificate-----------------------------------------------------------------------------72
17. Cyber Cell Report------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74
18. Kindran’s Voice Analysis Report--------------------------------------------------------75
19. Kushal’s Voice Analysis Report---------------------------------------------------------77
20. Handwriting Expert Report---------------------------------------------------------------79
21. Kindran’ Signature Letter-----------------------------------------------------------------83
22. Forged Chief Election Commissioner Letter-------------------------------------------84
23. Sample Chief Election Commissioner Letter-------------------------------------------85
24. Chief Election Commissioner Witness Statement-------------------------------------86
25. Committal Order----------------------------------------------------------------------------88
26. Summons to the accused A1 -------------------------------------------------------------89
27. Summons to the accused A2 --------------------------------------------------------------90
30. Summons to the IO--------------------------------------------------------------------------93
31. Summons to the Panchnama Witness-----------------------------------------------------94
32. Summons to the Chief Election Commissioner------------------------------------------95
33. Summons to the Voice Expert-------------------------------------------------------------96
34. Summons to the Handwriting Expert-----------------------------------------------------97
35. The Exhibits----------------------------------------------------------------------------------98

Annexure No. 1
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)
1. District: Hilda P.S.: Tilak Nagar
2. FIR No.: 5/2017 Date: 9/04/2017
3. (i) Act: Rabat Penal Code, 1860 (R.P.C)

Section(s): 170, 120B r/w 34, 463 r/w 465
(ii) Act: The Representation of People’s Act, 1951
Sections: 123(7)
4. Occurrence of offence: between March 20th 2017 -April 8th 2017 (20/03/2017-
8/04/2017)
5. Information received at P.S: April 9th 2017 (9/04/2017)
6. Type of Information: Source information
7. Place of Occurrence:
(a) Direction and distance from P.S.: 2 KM West
(b) Address: Sarojini Park and the residences of the Accused A1 and A2 at Hilda
(c) In case, outside the limit of this Police Station, then
Name of P.S.: .N.A District: N.A
8. Complainant / Informant: Source information

9. Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars:

(a) Kindran (A1): S/o Indran, Age 55, DOB: 1 April 1962, Address: Mettu Street,
Mannai, Mital Nadu – 1, Mobile: 9955599555.
(b) Kushal (A2): S/o Vishal, Age 50, DOB: 10 October 1967, Address: Park Street,
(c) Nagarjuna (A3): S/o Gajanan, Age, 55, DOB: 10 September 1962, Address:
Subhedar Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 3, Mobile: 9955577333.
(d) Harish (A4): S/o of Subash, Age 49, DOB: 5 March 1968 Address: Temple Street,
10. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant / informant: No delay.
11. Inquest Report / U.D. case No., if any: N.A
12. First Information contents:
The Source Information reveals that the Accused A1 to A4 with a Common Intention
hatched a conspiracy to win the Bye-election of P K Nagar Constituency. The Accused 1
and 2 tried or attempted to take assistance of the Election Officials to get the Two Buds
symbol as their party Symbol. Accused 1 impersonated a Senior Election Official and A2
forged a letter from the Chief Election Commissioner’ Office.
13. Action taken: Since the above information reveals commission of offence(s) u/s as
mentioned at Item No. 3, it has been directed to Mr. Ramesh, the
Superintendent of Police (S.P) to take up the Investigation.
F.I.R. read over to the complainant / informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy
given to the complainant /informant, free of cost.
R.O.A.C.

14. Signature / Thumb impression Signature of Officer in charge-Police Station: Sd/-

of the complainant / informant: Sd/- Name: Suresh Kumar. Rank: Dy S.P.
15. Date and time of dispatch to the Court: April 9th 2017 (9/04/2017) 10 AM

Annexure No. 2
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

1. District: Hilda P.S.: Shivaji Nagar
2. FIR No.: 8/2017 Date: 19/04/2017
3. (i) Act: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Section: Section 8
(ii) Act: Rabat Penal Code (R.P.C)
Section(s): 120B r/w 34
18/4/2017)
5. Information received at P.S: April 19th 2017 (19/04/2017)
6. Type of Information: Source information
(a) Direction and distance from P.S.: 1.5 KM East
(b) Address: Sarojini Park and the residences of the Accused A1 and A2 at Hilda
Name of P.S.: N.A District: N.A
8. Complainant / Informant: Source information

(c) Nagarjuna (A3): S/o Gajanan, Age, 55, DOB: 10 September 1962, Address:
Subhedar Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 3, Mobile: 9955577333.
11. Inquest Report / U.D. case No., if any: N.A
12. First Information contents:
The Source Information reveals that the Accused A1 to A4 with a Common Intention
hatched a conspiracy to win the Bye-election of P K Nagar Constituency by bribing the
Election Officials to get the Two Buds symbol as their party Symbol.
mentioned at Item No. 3, it has been directed to Mr. Prakash, the
Superintendent of Police (S.P) to take up the Investigation.
F.I.R. read over to the complainant / informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy
R.O.A.C.

14. Signature / Thumb impression Signature of Officer in charge-Police Station: Sd/-

of the complainant / informant: Sd/- Name: Kiran Kumar. Rank: Dy S.P.
15. Date and time of dispatch to the Court: April 19th 2017 (19/04/2017) 3.30 PM

Annexure No.3
REPORT IN NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES

G.D. Vol. No: 58 NCR No.: 25/ 2017 Date: 19/04/2017
Police Station/Out-Post: P K Nagar District: Mannai
1. Date and time of report: 19th April 2017 (19/04/2017) 11 A.M.
2. (i) Act: Rabat Penal Code, 1860 (R.P.C)

Section(s): 171B r/w 171E, 120B r/w 34, 171F
Section(s): 123(1)
3. Name and address of the complainant/ informant: Mr. Subramanyam Swamy, The
Returning officer, P K Nagar. Mobile: 9890989097
4. Type of Information: Written
8/04/2017)
(a) Direction and distance from P.S.: 2 KM West
(b) Address: P K Nagar

Name of P.S.: .N.A District: N.A
(c) Nagarjuna (A3): S/o Gajanan, Age, 55, DOB: 10 September 1962, Address: Subhedar
Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 3, Mobile: 9955577333.
9. Non-Cognizable offence Complaint Letter Contents:
The Complaint given by the Returning Officer reveals that the Accused A1 to A4 with a
Common Intention hatched a Criminal Conspiracy to win the Bye-election of P K Nagar
Constituency by bribing the voters of the Constituency and also by undue influence
mentioned at Item No. 2, this report has been submitted to the 5th
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Mannai for taking cognizance of
the case.
N.C.R. read over to the complainant / informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy
R.O.A.C.

11. Signature / Thumb impression of Signature of Officer in charge: Sd/-

complainant / informant: Sd/- Name: Gopala Shastry. Rank: Dy S.P.
12. Date and time of dispatch to the Court: April 19th 2017 (9/04/2017) 3.30 PM

Annexure No. 4
WARRANT OF AUTHORISATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME -TAX

ACT, 1961, AND RULE 112(1) OF THE INCOME -TAX RULES, 1962
To,
The Assistant Commissioner,
Income Tax Department,
Mittal Nadu.
9th April 2017
Whereas information has been laid before me and on the consideration thereof I have reason to
believe that Mr. Rakshab is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article
or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either
wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be, diS.C.losed for the
purposes of the Rabat Income-tax Act, 1922, or the Income-tax Act, 1961.
And whereas I have reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money,
bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing have been kept and are to be found in the
residence of Mr. Rakshab.
This is to authorise and require you Mr. Pukhraj Agarwal, The Assistant Commissioner,
Income Tax Department, Mittal Nadu.
(a) to enter and search the said building/place/vessel/vehicle/A.I.R.craft;
(b) to search any person who has got out of, or is about to get into, or is in the
building/place/vessel/vehicle/A.I.R.craft if you have reason to suspect that such person has
secreted about his person any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion,
jewellery or other valuable article or thing;

(c) to place identification marks on such books of account and documents as may be found in the
course of the search and as you may consider relevant to or useful for the proceedings
aforesaid and to make a list thereof together with particulars of the identification marks;
(d) to examine such books of account and documents and make, or cause to be made, copies or
extracts from such books of account and documents;
(e) to seize any such books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable
article or thing found as a result of such search and take possession thereof;
(f) to make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article
or thing;
(g) to convey such books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable
article or thing to the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax or any other authority
not below the rank of the Income-tax Officer employed in the execution of the Income-tax
Act, 1961; and
(h) to exercise all other powers and perform all other functions under section 132 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961, and the rules relating thereto.
You may requisite the services of any police officer or any officer of the Central Government, or
of both, to assist you for all or any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of section 132 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Seal: Deemed to be affixed Signature of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax: Sd/-
(BOPANNA RAJU)

Annexure No. 5
PROPERTY SEIZURE MEMO

(search / production / recovery u/s 51/102/165 Cr.PC.)
1. District: Mannai P.S.: R T Nagar

2. FIR No. / GD No. 5/2017 Date: 9/04/2017
3. Acts and sections: (i) Act: Rabat Penal Code, 1860 (R.P.C)
Section(s): 170, 120B r/w 34, 463 r/w 465
Sections: 123(7)
4. Property seized / received:

(a) Date: 9/04/2017
(b) Time: 14.00 hrs – 17.45 hrs
(c) Address of place from where seized / recovered: #221B, Baker street, R.T. Nagar,
Mannai
5. Person from whom seized / recovered:

Name: Rakshab
Age: 67 years
Occupation: Politician-Businessman
Address: #221B, Baker street, R.T. Nagar, Mannai
6. Witnesses:
(i) Name: Ramnath
Age: 30
Occupation: Charted Accountant
Address: #393, Baker street, R.T. Nagar, Mannai

(ii) Name: Ashank

Age: 35
Occupation: Doctor
Address: #284, Baker street, R.T. Nagar, Mannai
7. Action taken/recommended for disposal of perishable property: nil
8. Action taken / recommended for keeping of valuable property: packed, sealed and sent
to the safe custody - office of District Collector, Mannai
9. Identification required: Yes
10. Details of properties seized / recovered:

a. A diary noting specific amounts of few crores of rupees against many members of
the party, with their signatures acknowledging receipt.
b. Cash amount of Rs.10 Crore all in 2000Rs denomination
c. Documents showing the MDS(K) giving more than Rs. 90 crores to seven ministers
for distribution among P K Nagar voters and that they were given a target of around
2,30,000 voters to bribe.
d. Documents showing the MDS(K) gave Rs. 5,000 to every voter in the P K Nagar
Constituency
Witness 1- Ramnath: Sd/- Name of the officer: Mr. Pukhraj Agarwal

Rank: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mittal Nadu
Witness 2- Ashank : Sd/- Signature of the Investigation officer: Sd/-

Annexure No. 6
IN THE COURT OF 5th ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HILDA
WARRRANT OF ARREST
(under section 70 of Cr.PC)
To,
Sumant Gill,
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Hilda Crime Branch.
14th April 2017.
Whereas information has been laid before me and on the consideration thereof, I have reasons to
believe that the below mentioned offences are committed by the below mentioned accused.
Whereas, Kushal S/o Vishal, Age 50, DOB: 10 October 1967, Address: 2 Park Street, Mannai,
Mital Nadu – 2, Mobile: 99555 88666 stands charged with the offence(s) under Section(s) 120B
r/w 34, 463 r/w 465 of Rabat Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 123(7) of The Representation
of People’s Act, 1951, you are hereby directed to arrest the said accused, and to produce him
before me before 15th April 2017 11 PM. Herein fail not.
Seal of the Court: Deemed to be affixed Signature of the Magistrate: Sd/-

Annexure No. 7

HILDA
WARRANT TO SEARCH AFTER INFORMATION OF A PARTICULAR OFFENCE

(under section 93)
To,
Sumant Gill,
Hilda Crime Branch.
14th April 2017.
Whereas information has been laid before me of the commission of the offence(s) under Section(s)
120B r/w 34, 463 r/w 465 of Rabat Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 123(7) of The
Representation of People’s Act, 1951, by Mr. Kushal S/o Vishal, Age 50, DOB: 10 October 1967,
Address: 2 Park Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 2, Mobile: 99555 88666 who is believed to be in
Hilda this week. It has been made to appear to me that the production of money, letters, documents,
books of accounts, Laptop and other valuables, is essential to the inquiry now being made and
about to be made into the said offence.
This is to authorise and require you to search for the above-mentioned things in the place of his
arrest, his office, his place of residence and, if found, to produce the same forthwith before this
Court, returning this warrant, with an endorsement certifying what you have done under it,
immediately upon its execution.

Annexure No. 8
S.C.ENE OF OFFENCE PANCHNAMA
Pancha No. 1: Date: 15th April, 2017

Mr. Sadgun
Age: 35 years
Residing at #50, lake view street, Tilak Nagar, Hilda.
Pancha No. 2:
Mr. Bharath
Age: 30 years
Residing at #106, lake View Street, Tilak Nagar, Hilda.
We, the above mentioned Panchas were called by the Assistant Commissioner Police
(Investigating Officer) to act as Panchas in the present case at about 11.45 am in the morning on
15th April, 2017. We were staying at the Hatty Hotel for a business related purpose when the
ACP had come and knocked on our door. He informed us that one person was said to be in the
possession of a large amount of money which was being used for unlawful purposes. The officer
also showed us a search and seize warrant before taking us to the place of incidence.
The ACP took us to room no. 502 on the fifth floor of Hatty hotel where the person had been
caught. It was informed to us that the apprehended person’s name was Kushal. As we entered the
room we could see that Kushal was standing along with some constables in one corner and there
was a suitcase filled with cash which was placed on the bed. The cash spread across the cot under
the mattress. The mattress had been removed to reveal the entire stretch of cash that was hidden
under it.
It was informed to us that a total amount of Rupees two crores were seized in cash. The cash seized
were in the new Rs. 2000 currency notes. We were shown that there were a hundred bundles in
total with each bundle carrying 100 Rs. 2000 notes. The serial number of all the notes were noted
down by the Police officer under the supervision of the ACP. In addition to this, a laptop was
seized by the officer. It was then placed inside a transparent bag and sealed. The ACP informed

us that the laptop could have been used to facilitate transfer of bitcoins and would therefore be
sent to the Cyber Cell for analysis. A seizure list was prepared by the ACP and read over to Kushal
who then acknowledged it. The contents of the seizure list was also shown to us in the presence
of Kushal.
Except for the above mentioned items, no other item/ property was seized by the police in our
presence. The panchnama concluded at about 2 pm on the same day and it was conducted in an
orderly manner. The contents of the panchnama were read over to us and are correctly recorded.
Pancha No. 1- Sadgun: Sd/- Name of the officer: Mr. Sumanth Gill
Rank: Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hilda

Pancha No. 2- Bharath: Sd/- Sign of the Investigating Officer: Sd/-

Annexure No.9
PROPERTY SEIZURE MEMO

(search / production / recovery u/s 51/102/165 Cr.PC.)
1. District: Hilda P.S.: Tilak Nagar
2. FIR No. / GD No.: 5/2017 Date: 15/04/2017
3. Acts and sections: (i) Act: Rabat Penal Code, 1860 (R.P.C)
Section(s): 170, 120B r/w 34, 463 r/w 465
Sections: 123(7)
4. Property seized / received:

(a) Date: 15/04/2017
(b) Time: 12.00 hrs – 14.00 hrs
(c) Address of place from where seized / recovered: Hatty Hotel, Tilak Nagar, Hilda
5. Person from whom seized / recovered:

Name: Kushal
Age: 50 years
Occupation: Businessman
Address: 2, Park Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 2. Mobile: 9955588666
6. Witnesses:
(i) Name: Bharath
Age: 30
Occupation: Engineer

Address: #106, lake view street, Tilak Nagar, Hilda
(ii) Name: Sadgun

Age: 35
Occupation: Doctor
Address: #50, lake view street, Tilak Nagar, Hilda
7. Action taken/recommended for disposal of perishable property: nil
8. Action taken / recommended for keeping of valuable property: packed, sealed and sent
to the safe custody - office of District Collector, Delhi
9. Identification required: Yes
10. Details of properties seized / recovered:

a. Cash worth Rs. 2 Crore. 100 bundles on Rs. 2000 notes with each bundle
containing one hundred notes.
b. An HP Pavillion Laptop; Silver colour which weighs about 1.5 kg.
Witness No. 1- Sadgun: Sd/- Name of the officer: Mr. Sumanth Gill
Rank: Assistant Commissioner of Police, Hilda

Witness No. 2- Bharath: Sd/- Sign of the Investigating Officer: Sd/-

Annexure No. 10
IN THE COURT OF 5TH ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HILDA
WARRRANT OF ARREST
To,
Sumant Gill,
Hilda Crime Branch.
16th April 2017.
Whereas, Nagarjuna S/o Gajanan, Age, 55, DOB: 10 September 1962, Address: 3 Subhedar
Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 3, Mobile: 99555 77333 stands charged with the offence(s) under
Section(s) 120B r/w 34 of Rabat Penal Code, 1860, you are hereby directed to arrest the said
accused, and to produce him before me before 17th April 2017 11PM. Herein fail not.

Annexure No. 11
IN THE COURT OF 5TH ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HILDA
WARRRANT OF ARREST
To,
Sumant Gill,
Hilda Crime Branch.
16th April 2017.
Whereas, Harish S/o of Subash, Age 49, DOB: 5 March 1968 Address: 4 Temple Street, Mannai,
Mital Nadu – 4, Mobile: 99555 77444 stands charged with the offence(s) under Section(s) 120B
r/w 34 of Rabat Penal Code, 1860, you are hereby directed to arrest the said accused, and to
produce him before me before 17th April 2017 11PM. Herein fail not.

Annexure No. 12
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF RABAT
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (Cri) No.494 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF MITTAL NADU PETITIONER
AND
KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. The instant petition along with an application under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Attorney General of Rabat along with the Advocate
General of Mittal Nadu praying for the transfer of the case arising out of NCR No. 25 of 2017
from Mannai, Mittal Nadu to Hilda and club them with FIR No. 5 of 2017 and FIR No. 8 of
2017, and be tried together before a Special Sessions Judge at Hilda.
2. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply mentioning inter alia that the Transfer Petition is
wholly miS.C.onceived and the allegations levelled therein are baseless, vague and incorrect
and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. They have referred to a decision of this Court
in Abdul Nazar Madani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2293, wherein it is held
that not only the convenience of the complainant alone but convenience of the accused should
also be taken into consideration before ordering transfer of criminal case from one State to
another. The reply proceeds to mention that the investigation is not yet complete and, therefore,
if the trial is transferred from Mittal Nadu to any other State, the same shall have adverse effect
on the trial and that there is every possibility that injustice and prejudice would be caused to

the accused. What is stated is that the witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of accused
would not be willing to travel to any other place for tendering defence evidence and, therefore,
transfer of case would result into injustice to the accused. Thus, the respondents have prayed
for the dismissal of the petition.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and in great detail. This
Court has also considered the documents forming part of the instant petition. This Court does
not entertain many such Petitions which are solely based on the ground of convenience of the
parties, unless extraordinary facts are brought out before the Court. Usually such petitions are
allowed on other grounds such as ensuring a fA.I.R. trial, where there are chances of witnesses
or the prosecution being influenced. Otherwise chances of the case being allowed by the Court
may not be very high.
Section 406 of Cr.PC Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.–
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is
expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred
from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High
Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High
Court.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney- General
of Rabat or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which
shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney- General of Rabat or the Advocate- General of
the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed,
the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order
the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application
such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate In the
circumstances of the case.

In K. Anbazhagan v. Supdt. of Police, (2004) 3 S.C.C. 767, a petition was filed in the Supreme
Court by General Secretary of DMK party, Mr. K. Anbazhagan, for transfer of cases pending
against the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms Jayalalithaa, stating that public confidence
in the fairness of trial was being seriously undermined. The Supreme Court allowed the petition
and transferred the cases from Chennai to Bangalore and held that to secure the ends of justice
and a fair trial it can be said that a political opponent who is ‘vitally interested in the
administration of justice in the State’ comes within the meaning of ‘party interested’ as stated
in Section 406(2).
In Shilpa Shetty v. Rikhab Raj Bhandari, (2009) 17 S.C.C. 388 (Baba Ramdev case), the cases
sought to be transferred were instituted by different people at different places i.e., the
complainants were different persons. Thus, even if the parties/complainants are not the same
in all the cases, the Court may agree to transfer those cases at one common place, at the request
of the accused
In A.E. Premanand v. Escorts Finance Ltd., (2004) 13 S.C.C. 527, three different cases were
filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in three different places, although
they were arising out of the same transaction. The Court held that it would be appropriate and
in the interest of justice that all these cases should be tried in one court. And hence cases
pending in UP and Haryana were transferred to Delhi, where one of the said cases was already
pending.
In Sachin Dubey v. Shirish Kumar Bharadwaj, (2005) 11 S.C.C. 178, a criminal complaint
was filed against the son-in-law and his other family members under Section 498-A R.P.C,
however all the family members, against whom a complaint was filed were residing at different
places, hence they came before the Supreme Court, praying that the case be tried at one
common place, which would be convenient for all. The Court held that it is convenient for all
the petitioners to have the trial in one of the competent Courts at Bhopal.
In Gurcharan Dass Chadha vs. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1418, this Court held
that "A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case
that justice will not be done. A petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will
inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be
inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged.
It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done

but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that
justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice. The Court has further to see whether
apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of
the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all.
The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable
apprehension."
In Abdul Nazar Madani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 6 S.C.C. 204, this Court observed as
"The purpose of criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by
extraneous considerations. When it is shown that public confidence in the fairness of a trial
would be seriously undermined, any party can seek the transfer of a case within the State under
Section 407 and anywhere in the country under Section 406 Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not
getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based
upon conjectures and surmises. If it appears that the dispensation of criminal justice is not
possible impartially and objectively and without any bias before any court or even at any place,
the appropriate court may transfer the case to another court where it feels that holding of fair
and proper trial is conducive. No universal or hard-and-fast rules can be prescribed for deciding
a transfer petition which has always to be decided on the basis of the facts of each case.
Convenience of the parties including the witness to be produced at the trial is also a relevant
consideration for deciding the transfer petition. The convenience of the parties does not
necessarily mean the convenience of the petitioners alone who approached the court on
misconceived notions of apprehension. Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the
convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the
society."
4. From the averments made in the petition it is evident that the accused belong to powerful and
rich class of society with enormous political influence. The petitioner has been able to show
the circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that it has become difficult for the
witnesses to safely depose truth because of fear of being haunted by those against whom they
have to depose. If such a situation is permitted to continue, it will pave way for anarchy,
oppression, etc., resulting in breakdown of criminal justice system. In order to see that the
justice triumphs, it has become necessary to grant the relief claimed in the instant petition. On

the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice
would be served if transfer of the case from Mannai to Hilda is ordered.
5. For the foregoing reasons the petition succeeds. Thus, the case arising out of NCR No. 25 of
2017 from Mannai, Mittal Nadu, FIR No. 5 of 2017 and FIR No. 8 of 2017 from Hilda is hereby
transferred to be tried together before a Special Sessions Judge at Hilda. The investigating
agency, the prosecution agency, the State of Hilda as well as State of Mittal Nadu and the
learned Special Judge to whom the trial of the case may be made over, are directed to take
appropriate steps for protecting the witnesses and to ensure that the trial concludes as early as
possible and without any avoidable delay. The Transfer Petition accordingly stands disposed
of with no cost.
Dated: 23rd April 2017
Signature of the Judge: Sd/- J.
(RANJEET MATHEW JACOB)

Annexure No. 13
IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS AT HILDA
REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER/ CHARGESHEET

(Under Section 173 CR. P.C.)
1. Details
a. Dist: Tilak Nagar

b. . P.S: Tilak Nagar Police Station
c. Year: 2017
d. FIR No: 5 of 2017
e. FIR No. 8 of 2017
2. Final Report/Charge-Sheet No: 124 of 2017
3. Date: June 2nd, 2017
4. (i) Act: Rabat Penal Code Section: Sec 171B, 171F, 120B r/w 34, 463 r/w 465 R.P.C.
(ii) Act: The Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 Section: Section 8
(iii) Act: The Representation of People Act Section: Section 123(1), 123(7)
5. Type of final Report: Charge-Sheet
6. If supplementary or original: original
7. Name of the I.O.: Sumant Gill

Rank : Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Hilda
8. Name of Complainant / Informant: Source Information

9. Date of properties / Articles / Documents recovered / seized during investigation and

relied upon (separate list can be attached, if necessary).
Sl. No. Property Estimated From whom/ Recovered or Date on
deS.C.ription Value Where seized which
seized
1 Diary -- Senior Seized 09/04/2017
Minister
Rakshab;s
House.
2 Cash 10 Crores Senior Seized 09/04/2017
minister
Rakshab’s
house.
3 Cash 2 crores Kushal- Seized 15/04/2017
Hatty Hotel
4 Laptop -- Kushal- Seized 15/04/201
(Bitcoins) Hatty Hotel
10. Particulars of accused persons charge-sheeted: (use separate sheet for each accused)
Accused No. 1
(i). Name: Kindran Whether verified: Yes
(ii) Father’s/Husband’s Name: Indran
(iii). Age:55 DOB:1/04/1962
(iv). Sex: Male
(v) Nationality: Rabat
(vi). Passport No: Z190847 Date of issue: 6-06-1998 Place of Issue: Mital Nadu
(vii). Religion: Hindu
(viii). Address: 1. Mettu Street, Mannai, Mittal Nadu. Whether verified: Yes
(ix). Date of arrest: 17th April, 2017
(x). Name(s) and Address(es) of sureties: Mr. S Rangan, Mannai, Mital Nadu
(xi). STATUS OF THE ACCUSED: enlarged on bail.

Accused No.2
(i). Name: Kushal; Whether verified: Yes
(ii). Father’s/Husband’s Name: Vishal
(iii). Age: 50 DOB: 10/10/1967
(iv). Sex: Male
(vi) Address: 2 Park Street, Mannai, Mittal Nadu. Whether verified: Yes
(vii). STATUS OF THE ACCUSED: enlarged on bail.
Accused No.3
(i). Name: Nagarjun Whether verified: Yes

(ii). Father’s/Husband’s Name: Gajanan
(iii). Age: 55 DOB:10/09/1962
(iv). Sex: Male
(x). Address: 3 Subhedar Street, Mannai. Mittal Nadu. Whether verified: Yes
(xi). STATUS OF THE ACCUSED: enlarged on bail.
Accused No.4
(i) Name: Harish

(ii) Fathers name: Subash
(iii) Age: 49 DOB: 05/03/1968
(iv) Sex: Male
(v) Address: 4 Temple Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu
(vi) STATUS OF THE ACCUSED: enlarged on bail.

Brief facts of the case (Add separate sheet, if necessary):
The MDS part faction saw a split after the demise of their beloved leader Ms. Vijaya. Two factions
were formed. The one led by Mr. Kindran was known as MDS(K) while the other led by Mr.
Palani Selvam was known as MDS(U). Both the parties applied for getting the twin bud symbol
of the MDS party allotted to them. In light of the conflict between the two the Election
Commission froze the symbol and allotted a water bottle and Tiffin Box Symbol respectively to
them. Meanwhile, there were instances of widespread bribery occurring during the PK Nagar
midterm elections using various means. Surveillance officers were used to keep constant watch
of the Kindran since there were strong reasons to believe that he was spending crores of rupees to
bribe the voters. Subsequent to this, Kindran and his agent Kushal approached the Election
Commissioner trying to bribe them with money. When he declined the same Kushal contacted the
Chief electoral officer stating that he was Chief Election Commissioner and instructed him to allot
the frozen symbol to MDS(K) party. Kushal was arrested from Hilda and was in possession of Rs.
2 crore in cash and 30,000 bitcoins.
Forwarded by Station House Officer Officer/Officer in-charge.
Name: Sumant Gill

Rank: Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Hilda
Signature of the Investigating officer submitting the Final Report / Charge Sheet: Sd/-

Annexure No. 14
Dr. Shankar Nag

THE HOME SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF HILDA
To,
The Commissioner of Police,
Hilda.
D.O. No. 303/2017

March 20th, 2017.
ORDER UNDER RULE 419A OF THE RABAT TELEGRAPH RULES, 1951.
Respected Commissioner,
This is in furtherance of your letter dated 13-03-2017 requesting for interception and
recording of telephonic conversation between the suspects Kindran (Mobile: 9955599555) and
Kushal (Mobile: 9955588666) in the suspected bribery and illegal transaction of black money and
other unlawful activities.
I hereby, authorise and sanction for the interception and recording of telephonic conversation
between the suspects Kindran (Mobile: 9955599555) and Kushal (Mobile: 9955588666) from 20-
03-2017 to 20-04-2017in the interest of integrity, security of the State, friendly relations with
sovereign States, in public order and for preventing incitement to the commission of any offence.
This authorization Order has been affirmed by the Review Committee.
The Home Secretary, Government of Hilda: Sd/-
(SHASHWATH SINGH)

Annexure No. 15
Conversation of March 25th between Mr.Kushal(9955588666) and Mr Kindran

(9955599555)at 10:30 a.m.
Kindran : Hi Kushal!
Kushal : Hello Kindran Sir! How are you?
Kindran : Not too good, boy. I need your help.
Kushal : Yes Sir! Tell me. I will try my best. What is the matter?
Kindran : Hmmm. I am planning to contest in the P.K Nagar Constituency.
Kushal : Oh wow! That’s amazing Sir. Good luck.
Kindran : thanks! But the problem is that there is internal dispute within the party. UPS is not
allowing me to contest. He wants all the power! That old man is ruining it all! I want to win this
seat at any cost, by hook or crook.
Kushal : I see where you are going. How may I help you?
Kindran : So the EC has frozen the two bud election symbol because of that dispute and allotted
us with a water bottle and tiffin box symbol.
Kushal : Oh no! that’s a problem. Its very well aware that the enter Mannai has a lot of sentimental
value attached to the two bud symbol.
Kindran : Yes! Exactly my point. I want that symbol to be given to me at any cost. I am ready to
leave no stone unturned to ensure the same. I need your help as well. Harish and Nagarjun my
financial planner are also on board. They are going to help you too!
Kushal : very well. I am your agent, and I am bound to act as per your orders! Tell me what should
I do Sir.
Kindran : So Kushal, I shall give you 50 crores. Please give this money to the Chief Election
Commissioner of Rabat and ask him to defreeze the symbol. As you know, he is not easy to handle.
He is a man of high ideals and character. So he should be given something that he cannot possibly
refuse. I shall share his personal contacts on WhatsApp. All your ideas should be well planned
and acted upon accordingly. Nobody should get to know about it. Let everything happen under

cover. Please update me from time to time, and ensure that everything happens before the 6th of
April. I believe in you. I feel you are capable of doing this.
Kushal : Don’t you worry sir. I shall give my best. Hope it all works well and we get the two bud
symbol all to ourselves. Good day.
Conversation on March 30th between Mr Kushal(9955588666) and Mr

Kindran(9955599555) at 6:30 p.m
Kindran : Hello Kushal! How is it going?
Kushal : Hello Sir. We are still chalking out a plan. Nagarjun Sir is trying to talk to the close aides
of the Election Commissioner of Rabat to check if anyone can influence him. Harish Sir is tracking
his daily routine to check where we could possibly meet him. However, I am worried a little. It’s
a lot of risk is it not?
Kindran : Hey don’t worry. I have a lot of pull and I know a lot of people. If anything fails, I can
cover it up.
Kushal: Ok Sir. As you say. I will work in accordance with you plan. Even I want to see you in
power.
Kindran : That’s like my boy. According to my sources, Mr Shahibi Quereshi, goes on a walk ever
morning. He goes to Sarojini Park. I think we should try meeting him there. Since he will not be
in his official capacity, I think it’s a good time to meet.
Kushal : very well sir. I think it’s a good idea. How about we meet on the 5th of April?
Kindran : yes let us meet him in Sarojini Park on the 5th at about 7:00 a.m in the morning, lets
offer him about 50 crores, so that he cannot decline the offer.
Kushal : yes sir, but what if he declines the offer?
Kindran : Don’t worry. I have a plan for that as well. Then we should show our other side . That
time you type a letter and forge his signature and send the letter to the Chief Electoral Officer of
Mital Nadu, asking him to defreeze the two bud election symbol and allot the same to us. You
know how much I want this seat at this point.

Kushal: But do you think the Chief electoral officer of Mital Nadu will agree to the same?
Kindran : ofcourse he will. The Election Commissioner of Hilda holds the highest post in the
election commission. Since its an independent body, his word is final. Nobody will dare go against
it.
Kushal : that’s a good plan. I will work on it and execute the same by april 5th afternoon. Hope
everything goes as per plan. Good day.
Kindran : yes I shall keep you posted. Good day.
Conversation on 6th April 2017 between Kindran(9955599555) and

Kushal(9955588666) at 7:30 p.m
Kushal : hello sir. I am afraid now. He didn’t agree for the bribe. What do we do now?
Kindran : Hey you need not worry. I have already spoken to Mr Venkatesh Iyer , the Chief
Electoral Officer of Mital Nadu, as the Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat and he believed the
same and took me to be the actual Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat. But you need to send
the letter as I have earlier instructed you about. Its pretty simple. Just send a leeter to the Chief
Electoral officer as the CEC of Rabat and forge his signature, and leave the rest to me.
Kushal : Oh that’s a good idea. What have you asked him to do?
Kindran : oh I made a master plan. I have told him that I have defrozen the two bud election
symbol and thus asked him to allot the same to MDS(K). The poor chap believed me to be Mr
Shahibi Quereshi and is promptly abiding by my orders.
Kushal : HAHA! Everything is finally going our way. The seat is all yours sir.
Kindran : I too hope the same. It would not have been possible without your help. I shall repay
back to you soon.

Conversation between Chief Election Commisioner of Rabat

(Kindran)9844245896 and Chief electoral officer of Mital Nadu
9844549685 on 6th April 2017 at 11:00 a.m
Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat (Kindran) : Hello Mr Venkatesh Iyer. This is Shahibi
Quereshi speaking here.
Venkatesh Iyer : Hello Sir! Good Morning.
Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat (Kindran) : Good Morning. How is the PK Nagar By
Election preparation going on?
Venkatesh Iyer : its fine sir. But after the freezing of the two bud election symbol, there has been
a lot of chaos and I smell bribery everywhere. All the three parties are trying their best to get the
seat.
Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat (Kindran) : oh I see. I have called you to inform that I have
defrozen the two bud election symbol and after a lot of S.C.rutiny and deliberation I have decided
to allot the same to MDS(K). In consonance to this I have written you a formal letter directing you
to, do the same. Looking forward to see you abide by my directions.
Venkatesh Iyer : As you say Sir. I shall wait to receive the letter from your office, as soon as I
receive it I shall allot the two bud election symbol to MDS(K)
Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat (Kindran) : Very well. Have a good day.
Venkatesh Iyer : Fine sir. You too.

Annexure No. 16
IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSION AT HILDA

C.C. No. 101 of 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF RABAT PROSECUTION
AND
KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS DEFENCE
APPLICATION UNDER 65B OF RABAT EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ACCOMPANYING

AN AFFIDAVIT
That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Prosecution prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to allow the Prosecution to lead evidence by marking the printed copies of
documents i.e. the tranS.C.ripts of the tapped telephonic conversations between the accused
Kindran (A1) [9955588666] and Kushal (A2) [9955599555] and between Kindran (A1)
[9844245896] and the Chief Electoral Officer, Mittal Nadu [9844549685] obtained from the audio
recording devices by the Cyber Cell of Hilda Crime Branch in the just decision of the case.
1. tranS.C.ripts of the tapped telephonic conversations between the accused A1 and A2 on

25/03/2017 at about 10.30 AM

30/03/2017 at about 6.30 PM

6/04/2017 at about 7.30 PM
4. tranS.C.ripts of the tapped telephonic conversations between the accused A1 and Chief Electoral
Officer, Mittal Nadu on 6/04/2017 at about 11.00 AM
AFFIDAVIT

I, Chandrachud Sinha, the Director of Central Forensic S.C.ience Laborartory, Hilda, aged about
64 years, Residing at No.534, Jalavayu Towers, NGEF Layout, Indiranagara Post, Hilda, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Director of Central Forensic S.C.ience Laboratory, Hilda having
certified the electronic records and documents in the above case and well conversant with
the facts of the case.
2. I have no personal interests in the verdict of this case.
3. I submit that all the communications made between the accused are in the form of
tranS.C.ripts of the tapped telephonic conversations between the accused A1 and A2 and
hence the printouts of the same are the evidence that I hereby certify as the bonafide and
authentic.
WHEREFORE, I most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the
accompanying affidavit in the interest of just decision of the case.
DEPONENT
Sworn to before me: Sd/-

Annexure No. 17
CYBER CRIME CELL, CRIME BRANCH DIVISION, HILDA
Name of Officer: Ms. Diya Krishnakumar.

Material to be examined: HP pavilion 2p1053 – laptop
Date when material was received by Cyber Cell: 15th April, 2017 at 5.45 PM.
REPORT:
The Laptop was brought to the Cyber Cell Division at Hilda by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police on the 15th of April, 2017 at 5.45 pm. It was placed in a sealed transparent cover and opened
before me. The model number of the Laptop was noted down and sent over for examination. The
ACP had informed that the device might have been used for possible transaction of bitcoins.
On examination it was found that the person holding the account had possession of 30,000
bitcoins. The bitcoins were enabled to be automatically transferred to an unknown account
whenever an algorithmic code was generated. Though the accounts to which the bitcoins were
transferred were not traceable the location to which they were sent could be known using the IP
address which received the bitcoin. Since the laptop was not enabled to mask the IP address using
a VPN, tor browser or anything of similar nature the IP address when the transfers happened were
clearly logged by the Internet Service Provider. After carefully following all the traces we were
able to locate the place to which the bitcoin transfer was made.
A total of four transfers were made to the State of Mittal Nadu. This transfer was initiated
automatically whenever a person located in Mittal Nadu generated a unique algorithmic code.
IP Addr. (Origin) State IP Addr. (Destination) State
216.4.215.5 Hilda 204.3.211.3 Mittal Nadu
Signature of the Officer: Sd/-
(DIYA KRISHNAKUMAR)

Annexure No. 18
CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY REPORT

GOVERNMENT OF HILDA
Reg. No.: FSL 1(VA)/2017
From:
The Director of Voice Analysis
Central Forensic Science Laboratory
Government of Hilda
To:
The Assistant Commissioner of Police/ Investigating officer.
Hilda
ANALYSIS:
Name of the maker: Kindran
Source of Voice: Recorded conversation between maker and another.
Frequency at which maker spoke: 85 Hz- 110 Hz
Background Noise and disturbance: 10Hz-12 Hz
Maker’s voice distinguishable and clear: Yes
Source for Comparison: Recorded conversation from interrogation.
Frequency at which maker spoke: 90 Hz- 110Hz
Background Noise and disturbance: nil
Maker’s Voice distinguishable and clear: yes

METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spectrograph test.
The result of the test was determined using the Aural and Spectrogram.
The voice samples were compared in a closed room with minimal external disturbance to
determine the accuracy of the samples. An extract from the original recorded source between
Kindran and another was taken from the telephonic conversation which was for a duration of 35
seconds. The extract was then put forward for Audio Enhancement where the unwanted sound and
noise was removed in order to improve the overall quality of the sound. This did not in any manner
alter the frequency or sound generated by Kindran. The entire audio was then played through a
spectrograph which produced a spectrogram marking the lowest frequency as 85Hz Hz and the
highest as 110 Hz.
The sample for comparison was given by the Interrogating officer through a sealed envelope. The
package contained a disc with an audio recorded for about 48 seconds. Since the audio was
recorded in a closed environment there were no noises or disturbances in the recording. The extract
was then played through a spectrograph which produced a spectrogram marking the lowest
frequency as 85 Hz and the highest as 110 Hz.
Common words and phrases were then determined from both the samples that were used for
testing. The frequency, intensity, pitch and breath pattern of thirty five sounds were compared
with each other.
RESULT OF THE TEST:
Based on the graphic display of the recorded signal on the basis of time and frequency with a
general indication of the amplitude an exact similarity between 32 of the words that were chosen
for comparison was determined.
CONCLUSION: A positive identification of Kindran can be established between the two extracts
that were subjected to the spectrograph test. The alleged voice in the phone conversation is the
same that has been taken during the course of interrogation of Kindran.
Signature of The Director of Voice Analysis, CFSL, Hilda: Sd/-

(KESHAV PRASAD)

Annexure No. 19
CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY REPORT

GOVERNMENT OF HILDA
Reg. No.: FSL 2(VN)/2017
From:
The Director of Voice Analysis
Government of Hilda
To:
Hilda
ANALYSIS:
Name of the maker: Kushal
Source of Voice: Recorded conversation between maker and another.
Frequency at which maker spoke: 90Hz- 110 Hz
Background Noise and disturbance: 10Hz-12 Hz
Maker’s voice distinguishable and clear: Yes
Source for Comparison: Recorded conversation from interrogation.

Frequency at which maker spoke: 95Hz-110Hz
Background Noise and disturbance: nil
Maker’s Voice distinguishable and clear: yes

METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Spectrograph test.

The result of the test was determined using the Aural and Spectrogram test.
The voice samples were compared in a closed room with minimal external disturbance to
determine the accuracy of the samples. An extract from the original recorded source between
Kushal and another was taken from the telephonic conversation which was for a duration of 55
seconds. The extract was then put forward for Audio Enhancement where the unwanted sound and
noise was removed in order to improve the overall quality of the sound. This did not in any manner
alter the frequency or sound generated by Kushal. The entire audio was then played through a
spectrograph which produced a spectrogram marking the lowest frequency as 90 Hz and the
highest as 110 Hz.
The sample for comparison was given by the Interrogating officer through a sealed envelope. The
package contained a disc with an audio recorded for about 87 seconds. Since the audio was
recorded in a closed environment there were no noises or disturbances in the recording. The extract
was then played through a spectrograph which produced a spectrogram marking the lowest
frequency as 95 Hz and the highest as 110 Hz.
Common words and phrases were then determined from both the samples that were used for
testing. The frequency, intensity, pitch and breath pattern of twenty six sounds were compared
with each other.
RESULT OF THE TEST:
Based on the graphic display of the recorded signal on the basis of time and frequency with a
general indication of the amplitude an exact similarity between 22 of the words that were chosen
for comparison was determined.
CONCLUSION: A positive identification of Kushal can be established between the two extracts
that were subjected to the spectrograph test. The alleged voice in the phone conversation is the
same that has been taken during the course of interrogation of Kushal.
Signature of The Director of Voice Analysis, CFSL, Hilda: Sd/-

(KESHAV PRASAD)

Annexure No.20
CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY
GOVERNMENT OF HILDA
Reg. No.: FSL 1(HA)/2017
From:
The Director of Handwriting Analysis
Government of Hilda
To:
Hilda
DOCUMENTS TO BE EXAMINED:
CATEGORY 1____________________________
 Signature on the Letter claimed to be signed by the Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat
(Sample 2)
 Signature on the Letter submitted by the Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat (for
comparison) (Sample 1)
CATEGORY 2____________________________
 Signature on the Letter by Kindran to his Party members (Sample 1)

 Diary having the signatures of 7 members of MDS(K) party: in specific analysis of
Kindran’s Signature (Sample 2)

OBSERVATIONS (CATEGORY 1)
After a thorough analysis of the both the copies that were submitted for handwriting analysis a
positive match between both the samples cannot be inferred. There are inherent differences
between both the samples and thus the signature that has been given by the Election Commissioner
does not belong to the same person who wrote the letter. A detailed report of the differences is
given below:
SPECIFICATION SAMPLE 1 (EC Signature) SAMPLE 2 (Signature on

letterhead)
Pressure used on Paper while High Low

signing.
Slant of the strokes Right Slant Vertical Slant
Size of letters Large Large
Stringing of words Continuous stringing Occasional breakage
Spacing between letters low Marginally larger
The differences between the signatures are clearly evident in both the documents. While the letter
which claims to be written by the EC has a lighter texture due to the lower pressure that has applied
on the paper, the signature submitted by the EC has a higher amount of pressure applied on it.
The curve and slant of the letters are inherently different in both the signatures. While on a plain
sheet of paper the letter claiming to be written by the EC has a higher angle while the signature
that has been provided by the EC is at a lower angle
The size of the letters remain almost the same in both the documents. The distinguishing feature
in both the documents is the way in which the letters are strung together to form words. The
signature submitted by the EC has a continuous stringing of letters with each letter connected to

each other in a cursive manner. The document alleged to be signed by the EC on the other is not
signed in the same manner because of the breakage in the link between certain letters. A pause
seems to have occurred while making the signature indicating the breakage. Spacing between the
letters is also different. In the signature submitted by the EC the letters are more closely arranged
than they are in letter. The height of similar letters in both the documents are also not similar to
each other. The pen strokes becomes lighter towards the end of the signature submitted by the EC
whereas it remains same in the letter.
RESULT:
Based on the differences between both the signatures a positive match cannot be established
between them. The sample signature submitted by the EC is not the same that has been produced
on the letter. Based on the analysis of the signature it can be said that the person signing it on the
letter was trying to mimic the signature of the EC.
OBSERVATION (Category 2)
After thorough analysis of both the samples that have been submitted for comparison a positive
identification between both can be clearly established. The signatures have the same
characteristics in both the documents and therefore it can be affirmatively be established that it
was Kindran who signed both the documents
SAMPLE SAMPLE 1 (Kindran’s SAMPLE 2 (Signature in

Signature on Letter to Party Diary)
Members)
Pressure used on Paper while High High

signing.
Slant of the strokes Vertical Slant Vertical Slant
Size of letters Large Large

Stringing of words Continuous stringing Continuous stringing
Spacing between letters low Low
RESULT
The signatures on both the documents have the same characteristics features as shown above.
Therefore, both the signatures belong to the same person.
Signature of The Director of Handwriting Analysis, CFSL, Hilda: Sd/-

(NAGENDRA MURTHY)

Annexure No. 21
The Party Members MDS,
PK Nagar Constituency,
Mittal Nadu.
March 30th, 2017
Respected Members,
I hope all of you are doing fine. This is to bring to your kind attention that the PK Nagar Bye-
Election has been announced to be held on the 12th of April, 2017. In light of the same I would
like to inform you that I have filed a nomination as a candidate. I hope all of you will be supportive
and help me get elected. I hope to bring a lot of changes for the benefit of everyone if I get elected.
Since, we are the true members of the party to which our dear Ms. Vijaya belonged it is only fair.
that we stand as representatives of the party and show our allegiance to her. We will therefore also
be filing an application to have the Twin bud symbol allocated to our party as the party symbol. I
request all the members to kindly show their support for the same.
Yours sincerely,
KINDRAN
(DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY)

Annexure No. 22
SHAHIBI QUERISHI (CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER) ELECTION COMMISSION OF RABAT, HILDA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To,
The Chief Electoral Officer,
PK Nagar Constituency.
Mital Nadu.
Dated: 7th April, 2017.
Sir,
This is to inform you that the Twin bud symbol which had been used as the party symbol of the
MDS party had been frozen by the Election Commission until proper enquiries and investigations
were made into the matter. This letter is to certify that all the inquiries have been completed and
the Election Commission has come to the decision that the Twin Bud symbol belongs to the
MDS(K) party as they have simple majority . The Commission hereby removes the frozen status
of the Twin Bud Symbol and based on the prior petition for allotment that was filed by the MDS(K)
party allots the symbol to them. The Chief Electoral is hereby directed to inform the Returning
officer of PK Nagar constituency to allot the Twin Bud Symbol to Mr. Kindran’s party at the
earliest.
Yours sincerely
Chief Election Commissioner

(SHAHIBI QUERISHI)
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, Hilda, 11001. Email: shahibi.querishi@eci.gov.in

Website: www.eci.nic.in

Annexure No. 23
SHAHIBI QUERISHI (CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER) ELECTION COMMISSION OF RABAT, HILDA
Dear Masha,
I wish to place on record deep appreciation of the Commission for your invention of the
Flameless Seal maker Machine. This product will be very useful for all organizations where
sealing by wax is required. Other inventions demonstrated by you are equally good. I wish you
success in your endeavour.
With best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Chief Election Commissioner

(SHAHIBI QUERISHI)
Ms. K. Masha Nazeem,

98/2, V Cross St. (end)
Timber Depot Road.
Ranithottam.
Nagercoil- 629001
Kanyakumari District
Mittal Nadu
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, Hilda, 11001. Email: shahibi.querishi@eci.gov.in

Website: www.eci.nic.in

Annexure No. 24
WITNESS STATEMENTS:
Shahibi Quershi, the Chief Election Commissioner OF Rabat:
I am the Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat, residing in Hilda. Earlier to this, I had worked as
the Election Commissioner of Rabat before getting elevated as the CEC in 2015.
After the sad demise of Ms Vijaya, the PK Nagar Assembly Constituency seat fell vacant.
Midterm election for the P K Nagar constituency was announced to be held on 12 April 2017.
There was hectic parleys between many political parties whose poll managers and their minions
settled around the constituency and worked round the clock canvasing for their party candidates.
Kindran filed his nomination along with party members. UPS also fielded Mr. Shoodanas his
candidate. Meanwhile the rebel group appealed to the State Election commission claiming the
Two-buds symbol. Mr. Katpady Samy also appealed to EC claiming majority support and also
produced the signature of 112 MLAs. The election commission froze the Two buds symbol and
allotted Water Bottle and & Tiffin Box symbol respectively for Kindran and Shoodan, who is the
rebel candidate. Their parties were christened MDS(K) & MDS(U) respectively.
All the three major parties, MDS(K), MDS(U) and KDK fielded strong candidates and worked in
a frenzy to get their nominee elected. Each accused the other of trying to buy votes by unfA.I.R.
means either by money or by giving freebies like white goods, which they can collect from dealers.
They were issued with tokens along with the pamphlets. The tokens were such that three tokens
together made a complete algorithmic code, which could be used to initiate a UPI (Unified
Payment Interface) transaction into any designated account from a designated account outside
Rabat. The identity of the sender account could not be deciphered by anyone. Likewise, if five
tokens could be put together, they generated a unique algorithm which enabled accessing a bitcoin
stash and allowed incoming transfer of bitcoins. Popular media reported that the bitcoin transfer
was more preferred as it gave enough value to buy entire month’s rations for a family of 5 as per
the prevailing CPI(Consumer Price Index) rates.
We came to know of this and had ordered enquires and sought help from the centre for protection
for a free and fair election. A heavy battalion of central reserve police force was deployed and

they checked every vehicle and carried out searches on receipt of complaints from people and the
media. The media also covered the events extensively and there were many sting operations
showing distribution of money and freebies by almost all party contestants. With the matters going
out of hand, the State Election Commission in consultation with us countermanded the election
and ordered enquiry. Charges were filed against the various candidates who indulged in such acts
and notices issued. I directed the Chief Election Officer, Mital Nadu on April 19 to ask the PK
Nagar returning officer to file a complaint with police for bribing of the voters.
On April 5th, while I had gone for my morning walk in Sarojini Park, Hilda, I was approached by
one person who introduced himself as Mr Kushal, the election agent of Mr Kindran and tried
offering me Rs 50 Crores to allot the two budd election symbol to MDS(K). I outrightly rejected
the same and warned him to not approach any Election Commission Official ever again.
On April 7th 2017, I was made to understand that a letter from my office bearing my signature
was sent to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mital Nadu directing that the Two Bud Election Symbol
has been defrozen and thereby allotting the same to MDS(K). However, as soon as this came to
my notice I personally spoke to Chief Electoral Officer not to believe the forged letter.

Annexure No. 25

HILDA
COMMITTAL ORDER
(Under Section 209 of Cr.PC)
C.C No. 101/2017.
BETWEEN:
STATE OF RABAT PROSECUTION
AND
KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS DEFENCE
believe that the accused are alleged for having conspired with common intention to bribe the voters
of the P.K Nagar Constituency in order to win the election and have also been alleged for having
bribed the Chief Election Commissioner of Rabat in order to secure the frozen two-bud election
symbol. Lastly, they have been charged for forgery, for allegedly forging the signature of the Chief
Election Commissioner of Rabat.
Since the offence(s) under Section(s) 170, 171B r/w 171E, 120B /34 and 463 r/w 465 of Rabat
Penal Code, 1860; Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 123(1) and 123(7)
of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, it is exclusively triable by the Special Sessions Court
Judge under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, the accused
persons are committed for the trial before the Special Sessions Court in Hilda.
Notice of committal order has been given to Public Prosecutor.
Copies of challan/charge-sheet have been given to accused who are on bail
Seal: Deemed to be affixed Signature of the Magistrate: Sd/-

Annexure No. 26
IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA
SUMMONS TO AN ACCUSED PERSON

(under section 61)
To,
Kindran (A1) S/o Indran, Age 55, DOB: 1 April 1962,
1 Mettu Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 1,
Mobile: 9955599555
1st October 2017.
Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer to the charges under Section 170, 120B r/w 34,
171B r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860, under Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951, you are
hereby required to appear in person or by pleader, as the case may be before the 5th Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate of Hilda, on the 6th of October 2017. Herein fail not.

Annexure No. 27

(under section 61)
To,
Kushal S/o Vishal, Age 50, DOB: 10 October 1967,
2 Park Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 2,
Mobile: 99555 8666
1st October 2017
Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer to the charges under Section 120B r/w 34, 463
r/w 465, 171B r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860, under section 8 of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act,
1951, you are hereby required to appear in person or by pleader, as the case may be before the 5th
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate of Hilda, on the 6th of October 2017. Herein fail not.

Annexure No. 28

(under section 61)
To,
Nagarjuna (A3) S/o Gajanan, Age, 55, DOB: 10 September 1962,
Subhedar Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 3,
Mobile: 9955577333
1st October 2017
Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer to the charges under Section 120B r/w 34 of Rabat
Penal Code, 1860, you are hereby required to appear in person or by pleader, as the case may be
before the 5th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate of Hilda, on the 6th of October 2017. Herein
fail not.

Annexure No. 29

(under section 61)
To,
Harish (A4) S/o of Subash, Age 49, DOB: 5 March 1968
Address: Temple Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 4,
Mobile: 9955577444.
1st October 2017
Whereas your attendance is necessary to answer to the charges under Section 120B r/w 34, of
Rabat Penal Code, 1860, you are hereby required to appear in person or by pleader, as the case
may be before the 5th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate of Hilda, on the 6th of October 2017.
Herein fail not.

Annexure No. 30
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Sumant Gill
Assistant Commissioner of Police
Hilda Crime Branch
Hilda
Whereas, the complaint been made before me that Kindran, Kushal, Nagarjun and Harish has or
is suspected to have committed the offence under Section 170, 120B r/w 34, 463 r/w 465, 171B
r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860, under section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and under Section 123(1), 123(7) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and it appears to
me that you are likely to give material evidence or to produce any document or other thing for the
fair trial.
You are hereby summoned to appear before this Court on the 6th day of October 2017 at Ten
o‘clock in the forenoon, to produce such document or thing or to testify what you know concerning
the matter of the said complaint, and not to depart thence without leave of the Court. You are
hereby warned that, if you shall without just excuse neglect or refuse to appear on the said date, a
warrant will be issued to compel your attendance.

Annexure No. 31
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Bharath,
#106, lake view street, Tilak Nagar,
Hilda
fair trial.

Annexure No. 32
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Keshav Prasad
Director of Voice Analysis, CFSL
Hilda
fair trial.

Annexure No. 33
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Keshav Prasad
Director of Voice Analysis, CFSL
Hilda
fair trial.

Annexure No. 34
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Nagendra Murthy
Director of Handwriting Analysis, CFSL
Hilda
fair trial.

Annexure No. 35
THE EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 : Audio Recording Device.
Exhibit 2 : Cash Seized:

Exhibit 3 : Laptop Seized

Exhibit 4 : Diary seized at Rakshab’s residence


Christ Prosecution Surana 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Christ Prosecution Surana 2017

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

Christ Prosecution Surana 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY WEST ROUNDS – 2017 Page no.

IN THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA

C.C. NO. 101 of 2017

KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS

ON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

 THE TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………..Page No. 2

 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………….............................Page No. 3

 THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………................................Page No. 8

 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………….............................Page No. 9

 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………Page No. 11

 THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES………………………..............................Page No. 12

 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………...Page No. 13

 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………….Page No. 14

3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE

4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT PENAL

 THE PRAYER……………………………………………..................................Page No. 29

 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES……………………………Page No. 30

 THE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND ANNEXURES.....................................Page No. 36

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

48. Sansar Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1934 All 711;

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

9. TYAGI, SURENDRA PRAKASH, CRIMINAL TRIAL (2ND ed., 1996)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R. All India Reporter

S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter

SLP Special Leave Petition

u/s Under Section

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE PREVENTION

Kindran has impersonated as the Chief Election Commissioner by making a telephonic

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

1. An agreement between two or more persons

2. The agreement must relate to doing or causing to done either

II. A plan or Scheme embodying means to accomplish that object

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

IV. In the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act5 .

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Place: Rabat S/d_ S/d_