Page |1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBJECT: DRAFTING, PLEADING & CONVEYANCING

PROJECT TITLE: MODEL DRAFTS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, POWER OF

ATTORNEY, CONSUMER COMPLAINT

SUBMITTED BY

N. Rupeswar
2017056

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to express my heartfelt gratitude to our esteemed assistant professor of DPC,
Mrs. Bhagyalakshmi, for giving me this golden opportunity to take on this “MODEL DRAFTS
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, POWER OF ATTORNEY, CONSUMER COMPLAINT”
project. I have tried my best to gather project information in various ways to show a clear picture
of the given research paper topic.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is solely doctrinal and is focused on primary and secondary sources, such as articles
in newspapers, blogs, books, magazines and sources on the Internet. In order to answer questions,
this research method aims to gather and evaluate knowledge. The study is strictly descriptive of
the subject in its limitations.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |3

IN THE COURT OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Criminal Appeal No 143 of 2020

Between:
Phoolchand Tripati,
S/o Pankaj Tripati,
Aged 45 years,
Occ. Businessman,
R/o. Mirzapur ………………………..……..………Appellant/ Original Accused,

And
Guddu Pandit,
S/o Bablu Pandit,
Age 52 years,
Occ. Agriculturist
R/o Mirzapur. ..……………………….……...…Respondent/ Original Complainant.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

The appellant above named most respectfully submits as follows

1. Madhuri had been kidnapped by the accused/Respondent Guddu Pandit when Madhuri had
gone out around midnight. The Respondent first took her to Delhi, then to Bhubaneshwar
and finally to Maldives.
2. On the morning of the day she went away, her father, appellant Phoolchand Tripati realized
she was missing and tried to find her around the area where they lived. However, all his
attempts were futile and he filed a FIR under section 361 of IPC at the police station.
During the investigation, she was found and rescued from the house of a relative of the
accused.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |4

3. In Trail Court, the counsel for the accused argued that the girl had attained the age of
discretion (age to take decisions for herself and understand the consequences of her act) as
she was 17 years, 11 months and 7 days old and thus kidnapping did not take place.
4. The Trail Court without considering the Consent of the Kidnapped girl or Force used by
the Accused gave the Judgement on the sole basis of considering age.
5. The Trail Court held that the Accused cannot be held guilty, as the Girl, who got kidnapped
has attained the age of nearly 18 years.
6. That being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant herein approaches this honorable
High Court of Delhi by filing the present Appeal on the following grounds:
i) That the learned Trail judge has erred in without imposing the punishment under
section 363 of IPC against appellant (Ex-1).
ii) That the learned Trail judge did not allow appellant to adduce the evidence on his behalf
iii) That the learned Judge did not Consider the Consent of the Kidnapped girl or Force
used by the Accused
iv) That by refusing the appellant to adduce the evidence, the Judge had violated the
principles of natural justice.
v) That the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trail Judge is otherwise also
contrary to law against the weight of evidence and against the principles of justice
equity and good conscience.
vi) The appellant prays that judgement passed by the learned Trail Judge in Criminal Case
No. 562 of 2001 may kindly be set aside with costs.

Place: Delhi
Date: 25-6-2002

N. Rupeswar
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |5

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR A COURT CASE

BY THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, I, Arjun Reddy son of Samara Simha Reddy aged 29 years,
Employee in WIPRO, Bangalore, residing at Richmond Town, Bangalore, plaintiff in civil suit
No. 164 of 2019 hereinafter referred to as the said suit, pending in the High court of the Andhra
Pradesh hereby nominate, constitute and appoint Shri Bahubali son of Shri Kattappa, Aged 23
years Doctor in Apollo Hospitals, Vijayawada resident of Benz Circle area, Vijayawada, as my
attorney for me, in my name and on my behalf to do or execute all or any of the following acts or
things in connection with the said suit
1. To represent me before the said court or in any other, where the said suit is transferred in
connection with the said suit.
2. To engage or appoint any solicitor, counsel, advocate, pleader or lawyer to conduct the said
suit.
3. Submit cases to lawyers/legal personnel on behalf of me.
4. File FIR/complaints to relevant authorities
5. Depose for evidence or give statements
6. To prosecute the said suit and proceedings, to sign and verify all plaints, pleadings,
applications, petitions or documents before the court and to deposit, withdraw and receive
document and any money or moneys from the court or from the defendant either in
execution of the decree or otherwise and sign and deliver proper receipts for me and
discharges for the same.
7. To apply for inspection and inspect documents and records, to obtain copies of documents
and papers.

8. To deposit, withdraw or receive money with regards to and for the purpose of any
proceedings in the aforesaid case.
9. Challenge and object to witnesses, provide and challenge evidence, waive evidence and
transfers or postponements of proceedings. Make depositions, reply to interrogatories and
answer such questions of whatsoever nature as may be established in law.
10. File extraordinary appeals for review and reversal. Abandon any appeals, including those
of review and reversal. Challenge and object to judges and magistrates.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |6

11. Participate in acts of conciliation, with or without agreement, in respect of acts of disposal.
Settle or compromise; submit issues and disputes to arbitration.
12. To do generally all other acts and things for the conduct of the said suit as I could have done
the same if I were personally present.

And I do hereby that all acts, deeds and things, legally, done or executed by the said
attorney shall be deemed to be acts, deeds and things before done by me. I also bind myself to
ratify and confirm all and whatever is done or lawfully caused to be done for me on account of
powers given by these presents.
I read this document to the appearer, Shri Bahubali S/o. Kattappa, who declines to use his right to
do so for himself, of which he is advised, and he approves, ratifies and signs it with me, the Notary,
and I certify and bear witness to the entire contents of this public instrument, issued on two sheets
of stamped paper for exclusive use in notarial documents, series 17 & 24, numbers 546 & 236.

IN WITNESS WHERE OF, I have signed this deed of Power of Attorney for a court case on this
the 1st day of October, 2019.
Arjun Reddy,
Executant.

“I hereby accept all the Powers”

Bahubali,
Attorney Holder.

WITNESSES:
1. N. T. Rama Roa
S/o. Nagarjuna,
Occ. Actor,
R/o Ramoji Film City.
2. Allu Arjun
S/o. Prabhas,
Occ. Dance master,
R/o Guntur.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |7

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM OF HYDERABAD

Consumer Complaint No. 543/2017

Between:

Mahesh Babu
S/o. Sobhan Babu,
Aged: 32 years,
Occ: Bus Driver,
R/o. Hyderabad. ………………………………………………………Complainant,

versus

S & S Company,
R/o. Hyderabad. …..…………………………………………………….....Opponent.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

1986

The Complainant above named respectfully submits as follows:

1. The complainant bought a 5-star Air conditioner from S & S company for Rs. 1,00,000/-,
vide receipt No. 6342, dated on 5-1-2017 and equipped in his Housing Complex. The
Company dealer has also issued a Warranty card for a year.
2. After months the Air conditioner is not working properly and the company came and made
the service by some charge basis. After that repair, one day the Air conditioner has been
stopped working as functioning of the inside fan is not proper. He complained to the S & S
company. The Company did not send any service engineer to the house of the Complainant
as per guarantee card. The complainant asked the seller to make to it repair as early as

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |8

possible. The dealer said recklessly that it was not their work as the repair was inside the
machine and asked complaint to go to Chennai, which is head office.
3. The complainant makes a phone call to the head office, Chennai, where the agent has said
that they will send the technician within 15 days. Even after one month, no one came to the
complainant house for the repair. The complaint again and again tries to make a call and the
opposite party is not responding.
4. That the Complainant sent a notice dated 13-7-2017 to the opponent to return the money of
Rs. 1,00,000/- and to take away the Air Conditioner, or to replace another Air conditioner.
The opponent did not give any reply.

Then the Complainant, therefore, prays the honorable District Consumer Forum to be pleased to:
a. order the opponent to replace the Air conditioner or to return the money of Rs.1,00,000/-;
b. by taking back the Air conditioner sold by them;
c. the opponent may be ordered to pay the compensation for the period of two months as the
Petitioner sustained mental depression and inconvenience;
d. pass any orders deem fit and just in the circumstances.

Prayed
Mahesh Babu,
Complainant.

Place: Hyderabad
Date: 25-8-17

LIST OF DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED

1. Receipt bearing No.6342, dated 5-1-2017 from the Opponent S & S Company for Air
conditioner for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
2. Warranty card issued by the S & S company for period of a year.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793

 Page |9

3. Notice dated 13-7-2017 issued by the Complainant to the opponent.

Verification:

Mahesh Babu, S/o. Sobhan Babu, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Bus Driver, R/o. Hyderabad.the
complainant do hereby declare and state that the contents and particulars of the complaint stated
above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and no part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therein verified at Hyderabad on this the 26th day of August
2017.

Mahesh Babu,
Complainant.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4030793