1

MAHATMA GANDHIMISSION'S COLLEGE OF LAW

Phase II, Sector-8, Nerul(W), Navi Mumbai- 400 709

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

NAME: Adatt lipathi.

ROLL N0:

CLASS:- 5" YEARBLS.LLB

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 2

IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE

THE SESSIONS COURT OF DUMBAI
AT DUMBAI

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE.... ..PROSECUTION

VS.

SUG PALI... ...RESPONDENT

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 3

INDEX

1. LIST OF ABBRIVATIONS
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
3. TABLE OF STATUTE
i. WEBSITES
ii. BOOKS
ii. TABLE OF CASES
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5. STATEMENTS OF FACTS
6. GROUND OF APPEAL
7. ARGUMENTS & ISSUES
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
9. PRAYER

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1, H.C. HIGH Court

2. S.C. Supreme Court
3. A.J.R. All India Reports
4. P&H Punjab and Haryana
5. Hon'ble Honourable
6. VS. Versus
7. Ors. Others
8. Vol. Volume
9. SCC Supremne Court Cases
10.Sec. Section

ON THE BEHALF OFPROSECUTION

 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF STATUTES

1) INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

WEBSITES

1. https:l/indiankanoon.org/
2. https://www.lavwfinderlive.com
3. http://www.advocatekhoj.com/

BOOKS

1. The lndian PenalCode Act No. 45 of 1860 by Prof. T.

Bhattacharyya 18"h Edition.
2. The Indian Penal Code Act No.45 of 1860 By. Prof. Surya
Narayan Mishra 20" Edition.
Edition.
3. PSA Pillai's Criminal law by Prof. KIVibhute 14"

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 6

TABLE OF CASES

1. Chandra Pal Singh v. Vijit Singh &Anr.

2. Hamidav. Rashid & Ors.

3. Kanta Prashadv. Rizak Ram

4. State of U.P. v. Kailashnath Agarwal & Ors.

5. Bhushan Lal Raina v. The State of Jharkhand

6. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra

7. Thiru. Ayyamuthu v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

8. Gopal Ansal v. State

9. Jaskaran Singh Etc. v. State Of

Haryana
10. Sant Ram v. State Of
Haryana

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Section 381 - Appeal toCourt of Session how heard

1. Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (2), an appeal to the Court of Session or

Sessions Judge shall be heard by the Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions
Judge:

Provided that an appeal against a conviction on a trial held by a Magistrate of

the second class may be heard and disposed of by an Assistant Sessions Judge
ora Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. An Additional Sessions Judge, Assistant Sessions Judge or a Chief Judicial
Magistrate shall hear only such appeals 'as the Sessions Judge of the division
may, by general or special order, make over to him or as the High Court may, by
special order, direct him to hear.

Under Articles 132 to 136 of the Constitution of India, an appeal can be made to
the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.
374. Appeals from convictions
(1) Any person convicted on atrial held by a High Court in its extraordinary
original criminaljurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.

The appellant humbly submits this memorandurm for the petition before this
learned court under the - Section 381 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1960.
226. Power of Court to issue certain APPEAL

1. Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it

exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government.

2. The power conferred to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government

authority or person may also be exercised by any Court.

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Sug Pali is a resident of Rune residing at 102, Raj heights. Kothrud,
Rune
-31.

2. He belongs to a family dealing in the business of hospitality and

transport services since several years in Central India, which has to their
credit successfulrunning of various Hotels, Resorts etc.

3. As Sug is in hotel business, he decided to open a Restaurant at Dumbai.

4. For the said purpose, he along with some of his friends

incorporated a
Company by name "Tirupati Restaurants & Cafe Private Limited"
wherein Sug is one of the Director and shareholder.

5. The said Company obtained premise admeasuring about 3300 Sq.ft.

along with right to use adjoining open area of 4410 sq.ft. and upper
mezzanine floor of 2500 sq.ft. situated at third floor of Trade House,
Jamala Mills Compound on Leave and License basis from the owner of
the land and the Developer namely "Royal Traders" & "Jamala Mills
Limited".

6. On the night in between 5" & 6n August, 2021, there was an

unfortunate incidence of fire in the adjoining Restaurant namely 10
Above".

7. He was telephonically informed about the said incidence by his Manager

after midnight of 05/08/2021 i.e. sometime at about 1:00 a.m. of
06/08/2021, while he was travelling from Rune to Dumbai.

8. Sug was informed that the staff of his Company has not only ensured
that all the customers of the restaurant of the company of Sug are sately
rescued from the fire, which has spread to the restaurant of the
Company of Sug also, but they had saved the lives of many customers of
"10-Above" restaurant, who were trapped in the fire.
 9

9. Subsequently, Sug came to know that unfortunately, the said incidence

of fire has caused the loss of lives of as many as 14 persons, besides
injuring many.

10. But in fact, the fire started at the terrace of Sug's hotel as Hukkah was
served. Sug's hotel did not follow the rules as per the Cigarettes and
Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COPTA).

11. The 'Spot Panchanama' dated 06/08/2021 states all unfortunate victims
have died in the bathroom/toilet constructed by '10-Above' restaurant
and it appears that there was no ventilation or exhaust fan in the
bathroom/toilet where unfortunate death happened due to suffocation.

12. As per forensic report, Carboxyhaemoglobia was detected in blood

sample of victims in forensic examination reports dated08/08/2021.

13. Sug has been arrested on 10/08/2021 in Crime No.291/2020 dated

06/08/2021 registered at T.M. RoshiMarg Police Station, Dumbai for the
offences punishable under Sections 304 &337, 338, 216, 285 read with
Section 34 of Indian PenalCode.

14. A bail application was presented before the magistrate court Goiwada,
Dumbai, which came to be rejected on 21/08/2021.

15. Sug has now applied for a regular bail before the Sessions Court,
Dumbai.

16. Since the state stands firm that the accused, Sug
should be punished for
his negligence and malafide intentions, the state files
the present appeal
to oppose the bail application.

ONTHE BEHALF OFPROSECUTION

 10

GROUND OF APPEAL

1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION

304 OF IPC?

2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HELD

LIABLE UNDER SECTION
337 & 338 OF IPC?

3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION

216 OF IPC?

4. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION

285 OF IPC?

ON THE BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION
 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHERTHE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 304 OF IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the accused must
be convicted under sec.304 of IPC because due to the negligence of
ACCUSED- Sug Pali, 14 persons have lost their lives and many have been
injured.
SECTION 337 & 338 OF
2. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE UNDER
IPC?

the accused must

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that
negligence
be convicted under sec.337& 338 of IPC because due to the
people
of ACCUSED- Sug Pali, he has endangered several lives and many
have been grievously hurt.
UNDER SECTION 216 OF IPC?
3. WHETHER THE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE

Court that the accused must

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble
the ACCUSED- Sug Pali tried
be convicted under sec.216 of IPC because
registered against him on
to escape from the police when FIR was
06/08/2021 and avoided contacting the police.

SECTION 285 OF IPC?

4. WHETHERTHE ACCUSED HELD LIABLE UNDER

Court that the accused must

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble
due to the negligence of
be convicted under sec.285 of IPC because
many people
ACCUSED- Sug Pali, he has endangered several lives and
Hotel "MOJOS VISTRO".
have been injured due to the fire caused in his

PROSECUTION
ON THE BEHALF OF
 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENT I

Whether the accused held liable under section 304 of I.P.C.?

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
be
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall
either
punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of
also be
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
done with the
liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
a term
cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for
both, if the act is
which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with
without any
done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
likely to
intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
cause death.

liable for the actions

Sug being the director of the Company is vicariously
section Sec.166 of the
of the staff and Company in general as per
are mentioned.
Companies Act, 2013 in which the duties of adirector
of abuse of
Sec.447 of the Companies Act, 2013 in which consequences
position of the director has been mentioned.
Court that the accused must
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble
the negligence of
be convicted under sec.304 of IPC because due to
terrace of the
ACCUSED- Sug Pali, a fire which started from the
have lost
restaurant of Sug's Company due to suffocation, 14 people
their livesand many have been injured.
crime which has been
Corporate criminal liability can be defined as
pursuing a
committed by individual or association of individuals who for
their occupation
Common purpose or make business gain in course of
and with guilty
commit such acts or omission which is forbidden by law
individual.
mind where it is for the benefit of the corporation or any
"Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v Motorola Inc."
Supreme Court of India

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 13

ARGUMENT II

section 337 & 338 of 1.P.C.?

Whether the accused held liable under

Section 337 Of Indian Penal Code

personal safety of others.
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or
any act so rashly or
Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing
personal safety of others,
negligently as to endanger human life, or the
description for a term
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five
which
hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 338 Of Indian Penal Code

life or personal safety of
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering
doing any act
others.-Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by
life, or the personal safety
so rashly or negligently as to endanger human
imprisonment of either description for
of others, shall be punished with extend to
years, or with fine which may
a term which may extend to twO
one thousand rupees, or with both.

Court that the accused must

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble
to the negligence
be convicted under sec.337 & 338 of IPC because due
many people
of ACCUSED- Sug Pali, he has endangered several lives and
have been grievously hurt.

Muhammed Abdul Kareem Faisal v/s The State Of Kerala

Supreme Court of India

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 14

ARGUMENT III

Whether the accused held liable under section 216 of 1.P.C.?

216. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose
apprehension has been ordered.-Whenever any person convicted of or
offence,
charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that
the exercise
escapes from suchcustody; orwhenever a public servant, in
person to
of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain
escape or
be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such
the
order for apprehension, harbours of conceals that person with
intention of prevernting him from being apprehended, shall be punished
in the manner following that is to say, if a capital offence.-if the
ordered to be
offence for which the person was in custody or is
with
apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished
to
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
punishable with
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if
is
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.-if the offence
punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for ten years,
term
he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
the offence
which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if
not
is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and
to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description
provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part
of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence, or
with fine, or with both. 2["Offence" in this section includes also any act
or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of
3[lndia], which, if he had been guilty of it in 3[lndia), would have been
punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any lawrelating to
extradition, 4[***] or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in
custody in 3[lndia); and every such act or omission shall, for the
accused
purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the
person had been guilty of it in 3[India].]

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 15

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the accused must
be convicted under sec.216 of IPC because the ACCUSED- Sug Pali tried
to escape from the police when FIR was registered against him on
06/08/2021 and avoided contacting the police.

Sarita Baiv/s The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Supreme Court of India

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 16

ARGUMENT IV

Whether the accused held liable under section 285 of I.P.C.?

Section 285 Of Indian Penal Code
285. Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter.
Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or
negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or
injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take
such order with any fire or any combustible matter in hispossession as is
sufficient toguard against any probable danger to human life from such
fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the accused must
be convicted under sec.285 of IPC because due to the negligence of
ACCUSED- Sug Pali, he has endangered several lives and many people
have been injured due to the fire caused in his Hotel "MOJOS VISTR0".

Sant Ram v/s State Of Haryana

Punjab-Haryana High Court

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

 17

PRAYER

authorities
Therefore, in light of the issued raised, argument advance and
that the Hon'ble
cited. The counsel for the prosecution most humbly prays
court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:
1. Declare Sug Pali guilty under section 304 of IPC.
of several
2. Under section 337 & 338 of IPC, Sug Pali endangered the lives
people and many people have been grievously hurt.
3. Declare that under section 285 of IPC, Sug Pali has endangered lives of
several people and caused the death of 14 people by causing fire due to
negligence of his staff of his Company. He is vicariously liable for the fire
incident under Corporate Criminal Liability.
The Counsel PraysTo Enhance The Punishment And Give Justice To Victim Pass
Any Order That This Hon'ble Court May Deem Fit In The Interest Of Equity,
Justice And Good.

(S/D/-)
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ON THE BEHALF OF PROSECUTION