RGNUL 9TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT EXAMINATION

18212

RGNUL 9TH SEMESTER MOOT COURT EXAMINATION

On submission before
THE LEARNED SESSIONS COURT OF N.C.T OF DELHI

CRL. CASE NO. ____ OF 2020

UNDER SECTION 209 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

In the matter of:

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
(PROSECUTION)

V.

JASMIT
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM for PROSECUTION

Page | 1
MEMORANDUM for PROSECUTION
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................I

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION..............................................................................................II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................................................................................VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................VII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................1

PRAYER...................................................................................................................................5

I
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
¶ Paragraph
§ Section
AC Appeal Cases
AIR All India Reporter
All Allahabad
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
CB (NS) Common Bench Reports (New Series)
Cox CC EW Cox’s Criminal Law Cases
DLT Delhi Law Times
DRJ Delhi Reported Journal
FC Federal Court
J&K Jammu & Kashmir
KE/Ker Kerala
LR Law Reporter
MANU Manupatra
Ms. Miss
Nag Nagpur
NCT National Capital Territory
PC Privy Council
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
US United States

II
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SUPREME COURT CASES

1. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605.................................3
2. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962] INSC 229.....................................................................1
3. Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575................................................3
4. LIC v. Escort Limited, (1986) 1 SCC 264.......................................................................................4
5. M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626............................................................................................1
6. Mahedeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724............................................................4
7. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.............................................................4
8. Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka &. Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 585...............................................4
9. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190.................................................4

ENGLISH CASES

10. United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co., 142 Fed. 247..................................................3

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860............................................................................................................2

2. Negotiable Intruments Act.........................................................................................................4

II
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Accused humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Prosecution, i.e.
the State of N.C.T of Delhi approaches the Learned Sessions Court of Delhi against the
Defendant, Jasmit u/s 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which has been produced
below;

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, after complying with the provisions of section 207 or section 208, as
the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of
this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment
has been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to
custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if
any, which are to be produced in evidence;

The present memorial on behalf of the accused sets forth the facts, contentions, and
arguments in the present case.


CRIM. PROC. CODE § 209.
I
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
In 1998, Amita and Neeraj were studying engineering in a college in Delhi. One day in their college
canteen, Amita humiliated archrival Jasmit and also told him that he should go and hide his face as he
had lost elections to a girl. It was a common sight that Amita and her friends used to ridicule and make
fun of others. In 2002, Amita and Neeraj married each other although Neeraj was not willing to marry
Amita as he knew about her behavioral traits. After marriage, Amita persuaded Neeraj to move with her
to Delhi so that they could take care of her father's garment business.

THE ORDER & LOAN

In 2005, Amita and Neeraj moved to Delhi and started looking after the garment business. In 2010, they
got an order for manufacture t-shirts from Steve and Co. They had to take a loan from the bank for
preparing the order and they had mortagaged their factory premises for getting this loan.

DELIVERY & NON-PAYMENT DUE TO INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS

In December, 2015 Steve and Co. picked up the delivery of goods worth Rs. 3 crores and picked up t-
shirts till 2016 worth 5 crore. Steve and Co. had issued post dated cheques to Amita and Neeraj. They
approached Jasmit when the cheque issued by the Co. got dishonored when it was presented to the
bank on 29-2-2016. Jasmit was one of the Board members of the company. When the second cheque
worth Rs. 50 Lacs was presented to the bank on 30-6-2016 it was again returned for non-payment due
to insufficiency of funds.

THE PROCEEDINGS
Amita and Neeraj issued a notice under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Jasmit's company
went into liquidation and proceedings were initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code. Amita
was not able to take this and decided to end her life. Neeraj consoled her but she convinced him to take
the step as well. The bank officials were pressuring them for return of loan and had also threatened to
initiate auction proceedings. Jasmit was arrested by the police and proceedings were initiated under
section 306 IPC.

V
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT :

ISSUE I.

WHETHER JASMIT IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 420 OF THE PENAL CODE?

ISSUE II.

WHETHER JASMIT IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE PENAL CODE?

V
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT JASMIT IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Jasmit is liable for the offence of
abetment of suicide. It is being argued based on the following grounds:

i. firstly, Jasmit had the requisite mens rea for the commission of the offence; and

ii. secondly, Jasmit instigated the commission of suicide by Amita and Neeraj.

II. THAT JASMIT IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCES U/S 420 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Jasmit, through his company, took
delivery of products t-shirts from Amita and Neeraj, and did not pay the requisite
consideration for the same.1 Any person who fraudulently or dishonestly induces another
person to deliver certain property is said to have committed the offence of cheating. 2 It is
argued that Jasmit is liable for the offences under Section 420 of the Penal Code because:

i. firstly, Jasmit intentionally and dishonestly deceived Amita and Neeraj;

ii. secondly, Amita and Neeraj were induced to deliver the t-shirts to Jasmit; and

iii. lastly, Corporate Veil must be lifted and Jasmit should be held personally liable for
his conduct.

1
2
IPC 420
V
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT JASMIT IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 306 OF THE PENAL CODE

¶1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Jasmit made fun of Amita and Neeraj
when they were unable to recover money for the orders made for the company, and Amita
decided to end her life as she couldn’t take the humiliation. If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished. 3 In the present case, Jasmit is
liable for the offence of abetment of suicide as, firstly, Jasmit had the requisite mens rea for the
commission of the offence (A); and secondly, Jasmit instigated the commission of suicide by
Amita and Neeraj (B).

A. Jasmit had the requisite mens rea for the commission of the offence.

¶2. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that in order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. 4 In order to prove mens rea,
there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty
mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. 5

¶3. In the present case, Jasmit kept ordering and receiving t-shirts from Amita and Neeraj inspite of
being aware of the financial situation of the company accounts, 6 something he later admitted to
doing as a form of revenge for Amita’s previous actions.7 Thus, he had the requisite mens rea to
push her to such a financial state that she has no other alternative left.

B. Jasmit instigated the commission of suicide by Amita and Neeraj

A. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there should be a close link between
the instigating act of the accused and the act of committing suicide. 8 Where the accused by
his acts or continuous course of behaviour creates such circumstances that the deceased
3
PEN CODE § 306.
4
S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190.
5
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962] INSC 229.
6
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
7
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
8
M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626.
1
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,
person was left with no other substitute except the option to commit suicide, an instigation
may be indirect.9

B. In the present case, the cheque worth 50 Lakhs was returned by the bank due to lack of
insufficiency of funds and Jasmit admitted to be aware of the same when he reminded
Amita of his vow to take revenge. 10 Moreover, the company was in such a bad financial
state that it went into liquidation and proceedings under the insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code was initiated.11 Amita had no other option to recover from the financial losses she had
incurred and unable to bear that humiliation, she decided to commit suicide.12

C. Jasmit’s continuous orders of t-shirts to Amita and Neeraj while having the knowledge of
the financial status of the company resulted in heavy financial losses to the later. Thus, a
close link between the Jasmit’s conduct and the suicide of Amita can be established and
Jasmit must be held liable for offences under Section 306 of the Penal Code.

9
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
(2009) 16 SCC 605.
10
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
11
Factual Matrix ¶ 4.
12
Factual Matrix ¶ 4.
2
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

II. THAT JASMIT IS LIABLE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 420 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE.

D. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Jasmit, through his company, took
delivery of t-shirts from Amita and Neeraj, and was unable to pay the requisite
consideration for the same.13 Any person who fraudulently or dishonestly induces another
person to deliver certain property is said to have committed the offence of cheating. 14 In the
present case, Jasmit is liable for the offences under Section 420 of the Penal Code because,
firstly, Jasmit intentionally and dishonestly deceived Amita and Neeraj (A); secondly,
Amita and Neeraj were induced to deliver the t-shirts to Jasmit (B); and lastly, Corporate
Veil must be lifted and Jasmit should be held personally liable for his conduct. (C)

A. That Jasmit intentionally had dishonestly deceived Amita and Neeraj

E. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that a guilty intention is an essential
ingredient of the offence of cheating.15 Whoever does anything with the intention of
causing wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another person is said to do that
thing dishonestly.16 Additionally, deception means to make a person believe what is false to
be true and the same should be done intentionally at the time of commission of the
offence.17

F. In the present case, Jasmit kept ordering and receiving t-shirts from Amita and Neeraj
inspite of being aware of the financial situation of the company accounts, 18 something he
later admitted to doing as a form of revenge for Amita’s previous actions. 19 Therefore, he
intentionally and dishonestly deceived Amita and Neeraj about the financial situations of
the company while placing the orders.

13
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
14
PEN CODE § 420.
15
Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575.
16
PEN CODE § 25.
17
Mahedeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724.
18
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
19
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
3
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

B. That Amita and Neeraj were induced to deliver the t-shirts ti Jasmit

G. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that when one person uses deceitful
practices to convince the other person to agree on anything which is harmful to that person,
it is known as Inducement.20 When such inducements lead to wrongful loss to a person by
making him deliver certain property, the person doing such inducement is liable for
cheating.21

H. In the present case, Amita and Neeraj were deceived to deliver the t-shirts ordered by
Jasmit22 and the payment for the same was denied on grounds of insufficiency of funds, 23
leading to financial losses to the deceased.24

C. Corporate Veil must be lifted and Jasmit should be held liable

I. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that corporate veil can be lifted when the
notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or
defend crime.25 The same doctrine was relied upon by the Indian Judiciary in the case of
LIC v. Escort Limited, wherein it was held that the corporate veil may be lifted in case of
prevention of fraud or improper conduct on behalf of the members controlling the affairs of
a corporation.26

J. In the present case, Jasmit was one of the Board members of Steve & Co., 27 and was
instrumental in awarding the contract to Amita and Neeraj, 28 under the name of the
company. Therefore, as he was a person who controlled the affairs of the company and
used the garb of the company to commit fraud, he should be personally held liable for
offences under Section 420 of the Penal Code.

20
Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka &. Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 585.
21
PEN CODE § 420.
22
Factual Matrix ¶ 2.
23
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
24
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
25
United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co., 142 Fed. 247.
26
LIC v. Escort Limited, (1986) 1 SCC 264.
27
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
28
Factual Matrix ¶ 3.
4
 RGNUL MOOT COURT,

PRAYER

WHEREFORE in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court maygraciously pleased toadjudge and declare
that:

1. Jasmit is liable for offences under Section 420 of the Penal Code;

2. Jasmit is liable for offences under Section 306 of the Penal Code.

And pass any other order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Accused shall duty-bound forever pray.

Sd/-

All of which is humbly prayed

Counsels for the Accused