| KAMKUS COLLEGE OF LAW Affiliated to CCS University Meerut & Approved by Bar Council of India (Run & Managed by Bhagirath Sewa Sansthan) Bhagirath Campus, ‘'B’ Sanjay Nagar, Sec-23, GZB ‘Tel No.0120- 2793656, 272688 EMaiameuelewchotmall.com Website: www karkus.org NOTICE Subject: ind Practical File. Dear Law Students, ‘This is to inform all students of BA.LL.B./B.Com, LL.B. X* Semesters and LL.B. Vth Sem. that the submission deadline for the internship certificate and the practical file is approaching, As part of your academic requirements, you are required to submit the following documents: «Internship Certificate: Please bring the original internship certificate issued by the law firm, advocate, or organization where you completed your intemship. Ensure that it includes details such as the duration of the internship (not more than 30 days), tasks performed, and the signature of the authorized person. © Practical File: Your practical file should contain a comprehensive record of your internship experience. Include details of the cases you worked on, legal research conducted, drafting exercises, and any other relevant activities Make sure to organize it neatly and label each section appropriately. Submission Deadline: 28% May, 2024 Please note that failure to submit these documents by the deadline may affect your academic evaluation, We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. For any queries, please contact their subject teacher. Date: 01-04-2024 Copy to: IQACones, Moot Court Committee, KCL OF LAW Kamkus College of Law, Ghaziabad MOOT COURT CIVIL PROBLEM Statements of Facts: * Amit owns an ancestral house in Varanasi. In October 2000 he moved to Lucknow for establishing his clothing business. Shifting his base from Varanasi to Lucknow, made him to give his ancestral house on rent. He gaye his double storied ancestral house at Varanasi on rent to Ram Prasad at the rate of Rs, 500 per month. In January 2012 Amit realized that amount ofrent was not as per current market price and therefore he asked Ram Prasad to enhance the Fent from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000. But despite his request Ram Prasad paid littl heed, he defiied to pay the increased amount. After repeated requests he did not agree to payany extra money for rent. The denial of the payment of increased rent by Ram Prasad caused Amit to file one case at court of small causes at Varanasi in July 2012 relating to rate of rent which he claimed to be Rs. 1000 per month instead of Rs. 500. In September 2015 the small causes court decided that rate of rent would remain Rs. 500 per month. After that Ram Prasad stopped paying any rent to Amit. Being frustrated with the decision of the court, Amit filed another suit at July 2015 as advice of his friends at Varanasi Civil Judge Junior Division for ejectment suit against Ram Prasad with due rent from September 2012 at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month. At August 2015 Civil Judge passed judgment in favour of Amit and passed an order to Ram Prasad to pay the due amount with cost, Ram Prasad filed one revision petition before the High Court of U.P. about validity of order of Varanasi court.ISSUES: Issue 1: * Whether the present Revision petition is maintainable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Issue 2: « Whether the appellant can claim bar on the institution of a suit by respondent under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC or not? © The participants are required to preparéarguments as well as memorials for both the parties.kaMikus Moot Court Committee, KCL COLLEGE, ‘OF EAW. MOOT COURT PROBLEM (Constitutional) The Parliament of Indiana (Indiana ~ a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic, Country) has recently passed the “Digital Media Ethics Code” (refer India's Information ‘Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021) with an aim to regulate digital news media platforms in Indiana, Under the said Code, digital media platforms are required to adhere to certain standards in relation to content and journalism, including verification of news, prohibition on defamatory content, and adherence to journalistic ethics. A digital news media platform, ‘News Everyday’.(NED), challenged the validity of the Code before the High Court of United Province (UP,, a State of Indiana) on the grounds that it violated its Freedom of Speech and Expression under the Indiana Constitution as it was vague and arbitrary, while giving excessive péwers ta the government to regulate digital media platforms ‘The High Court upheld the validity ofthe Code. However, NED continued to operate its digital news media platform without complying with the Code. the Indiana government ordered NED to take down certain news articles that it deemed to be in violation of the Code. NED refused to comply with the Government's Order, stating that it had the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. The government initiated proceedings against ‘NED! for non-compliance of the Cade. NED challenged the Government's action in the Supreme Court of Indiana, arguing that the Code is unconstitutional and the Government's action is invalid, The following questions of law before the Supreme Court for determination 1, Whether the Digital Media Ethics Code violates the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under the Constitution of Indiana? 2. Whether the Government's order to take down certain news articles is valid under the Code? Whether NED has the right to publish such articles?Sanus GLLEGE OE LAW ‘* The Constitution as well as other laws of the country mentioned here is in pari materia with the laws of India, ‘The participants are required to prepare arguments as well as memorials for both the parties.Moot Court Committee, KCL MOOT COURT CRIMINAL PROBLEM (Palani v. The Tamil Nadu State on 14 February, 2024, SC) One John Doe (Referred to as “The Appellant’) ran a clinic which on 13th October, 2015 was inspected by the officials of the State of Emerald, viz. The Emerald Range Drug Inspector; Joint Director, Emerald District Health Department; Zone Drug Inspector Poonamallee. The Drug Inspector, Emerald filed a complaint under/Sec, 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Prosecution was initiated on the basis of 6 witnesses; 12 Exhibits and with the 29 types of medicines (a small quantity (Annexure P-1)) recovered, being marked as material objects. The case involves alleged offenses related to possession and sale of allopathic medicines without proper Jicenses. The Drug Inspector found 29 types of allopathic medicines in John Doe's clinic, méant for distribution without proper paperwork. The prosecution initiated proceedings based on. 6 witnesses, 12 exhibits, and the confiscated medicines as materiajevidence. Upon consideration of the evidence presented, the Trial Court found the case of the prosecution to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Appellant was sentenced to twa years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default whereof, he was to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii). For the offence under Section 184 read with 28 of the Act, the sentence was six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with one-month simple. imprisonment in default, Sentences awarded were concurrent in nature. Further, a cost of Rs.2500/- stood imposed for newspaper publication under Section 35 of the said Act. On appeal, the learned Additional District & Sessions judge, ie, the lower Appellate Court was faced primarily with the issue, of whether it has been proved that the drugs recovered were in the possession of the appellant for the purpose of sale/distribution. In deciding this question, the Court noted that no patients or any other persons were examined to establish that the drugs so confiscated were actually sold. No bills/receipts were produced. It was noted that PWS as also PW3 testified to the fact that the Appellant was running a medical shop, but it was observed that no proof had been offered to show that the drugs in the clinic were for sale. The Court also relied on Ex, P-10 (letter of theaccused to the Drug Inspector) referred to as A-10 in its judgment, to state that there is, only admission of possession but none for sale/distribution, It was, therefore, observed that no evidence has been put forth by the complainant in regard to sale and/or distribution. The offence under Section 18 (c) of the Act was, therefore, not proven. ‘The conviction and sentence in this regard was set aside while others were confirmed Accordingly, it wes held that the Appellant was entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Acriminal revision case stood filed against the judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court. It was observed that the scope of a Revisional Courts limited and is not akin to an Appellate Court. On account of the absence of any perversity or infirmity in the order of the lower Courts, the revision was dismissed, A further prayer was made to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 18(A) oftthe Act and vice it, a finecould be imposed The same was rejected. Hence, the present appeal Issues: © Whether it has been proved that.the drugs recovered were in the possession of the appellant, John Doe, for the purpose of sale distribution, Whether the prosecution has provided sufficient evidence to prove the sale of drugs. Whether admission of possessionsalone is sufficient to prove the intent for sale/distribution, Whether a Revisional Court can interfere with the decisions of lower courts. Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 18(A) of the Act should be set aside.