JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL.

B TC-15

JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – V SEM LL. B – 2023-24

MOOT PROBLEM

JKT20156
JKT21029
JKT21018

BEFORE THE SESSION COURT

OF INDRA NAGAR

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 57/2023

CC NO. 57/2023 OF THE SESSION COURT, INDRA NAGAR.
U/Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

IN THE MATTER OF
STATE OF SAURASHTRA PROSECUTION
V.
VIHAAN ACCUSED

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION PROSECUTION

SD/- SD/-
1

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL. NO. INDEX PAGE NO.

01. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

02. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

03. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

04. TABLE OF CASES 5

05. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

06. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8

07. ISSUES RAISED

08. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

09. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the accused is entitled to get discharge under section 227 of 11
CrPC?

2. Whether the accused as committed an offence of murder punishable 14

under 302 of IPC?

19
3. Whether the accused is entitled to the exception under section 84 of
IPC?

10. PRAYER 22

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e., That is

No. Number

OP Original Petition

Ors. Others

Pg. Page

Sec. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

Supp Supplement

U.O.I Union of India

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS REFERRED

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Textbook On ‘Indian Penal Code’ (22nd Edition Lexis Nexis
2022)
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Textbook On ‘ The Code Of Criminal Procedure’ (21st Edition
Lexis Nexis ,2013)
3. K.D. Gaur, Text Book on ‘Indian Penal Code’ (5th Edition New Delhi: Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2014).
4. V.R. Dinkar,‘Justice In Genes Evidential Facets Of Forensic DNA Fingerprinting’(1st
Edition, 2008)
5. Vinayak D Kakde ,’Criminal Trials Practice And Procedure’ (2nd Edition New Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2014)
6. P.S. Varma , Text Book On ‘Murder Trial’(1st Edition Premier Publishing Co.,2008)

B. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

1. Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005

2. Indian penal code 1860
3. Indian evidence act 1872
4. Criminal procedure code 1973

C. LEGAL DATABASES

1. Manupatra
2. Supreme Court Cases
3. All India Reporter

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

TABLE OF CASES

SL. NO NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

01. State of Karnataka Lokayukta v. M. R. Hiremath (2010) 9 SCC 368

02. Richard Winn Harcos v. State of West Bengal and Ors 1975 CriLJ 1256

03. Shakuntala V. State of Haryana AIR 2007 SC 2709

04. Harbans Singh V. State of Punjab 1962 AIR 439 , 1962 SCR
Supl.(1)104

05. Anda v state of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 148:1966 Cr

LJ 171. See also Rajwant
Singh of Kerala, AIR 1966
SC 1874
06. Birsa Singh versus State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

07. Ravi v state AIR 2009 SC 214

08. State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh 1996 AIR 1393, 1996,

SCC (2)
384
09. Katara v. State of Haryana 1980 AIR 1127

10. Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 973

11. Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495

12. Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 16 SCC 109

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the instant matter under Section 177 read with
Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Section 177:
"177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial-
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed.”
Read with Section 209:
“209. 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 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;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.”

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Republic of Sindhia, known as the "Land of Culture," is a country with a rich cultural and historical
heritage. People from diverse backgrounds live harmoniously, respecting the laws of the land. In Sindhia, the
majority worships deities personifying women, symbolizing strength and fearlessness. Nendhra Pradesh, a state
in Sindhia, boasts the highest literacy rate and advocates for gender equality in all aspects of life.

Sunaina, a young advocate known for her altruism, was returning home on her scooty late one night. She
encountered four men seeking help, claiming to be tourists with an injured friend. Despite her generosity, they
deceived her, leading her to a secluded area where they raped and murdered her, burning her body to hide the
evidence.

Her body was discovered the next day, triggering a nationwide outcry for justice. The police, using CCTV
footage, identified and arrested the four perpetrators: Javed, Rajesh, Deepak, and Joel. Public outrage grew, with
demands for swift justice and calls to #KillTheRapists trending on social media. The government responded by
expediting the case.

On January 24, 2024, the police presented the accused before a magistrate and requested a seven-day remand for
further investigation. During this period, protests erupted across the country, with candlelight vigils and high-
profile personalities joining the cause. However, on February 3, 2024, the news broke that the accused had been
shot dead by the police while being escorted to court.

While some hailed the police action as necessary, others condemned it as an extrajudicial killing. Questions
arose about how the accused could have obtained weapons in police custody. The families of the accused alleged
police threats and coercion.

The High Court of Nendhra Pradesh, in a controversial ruling, deemed the police's actions as an act of bravery,
citing the fear of the accused escaping and sparking nationwide unrest. The families of the deceased accused
then approached the Supreme Court seeking murder charges against the police officers involved.

An NGO named "Sabka Adhikar" also approached the Supreme Court, alleging violations of human rights and
constitutional rights. The petitions have been consolidated and are pending before the Supreme Court of Sindhia.
7

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-I:Whether the present case is maintainable in the High Court of Vikas Pradesh or
not?

It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble court that the present case is maintainable in
the High Court of Vikas Pradesh because it raises significant issues of public interest and
constitutional importance, particularly concerning the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bharatha Nadu, which guarantees the
Right to Life. The petitioners, the NGO 'Centre for Therapeutic Legal Healing,' argue that the
tragic deaths of Rajavan and his family highlight systemic failures, including the lack of
workplace mental health regulations and the negligent sale of a dangerous drug by the e-
commerce platform Flipdeal. These issues directly affect the well-being and safety of citizens,
warranting judicial intervention. The petition seeks to address these critical gaps by urging the
court to mandate policy guidelines for workplace mental health and to hold Flipdeal
accountable for misleading consumers, thus protecting public health and upholding
constitutional rights.

ISSUE-II: Whether the High Court of Vikas Pradesh can direct for formulation of Mental
Health Regulation related laws and policy guidelines?
It is respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble court that the High Court of Vikas Pradesh can
direct the formulation of mental health regulation laws and policy guidelines as the petitioner,
the NGO 'Centre for Therapeutic Legal Healing,' argues that such directives are necessary to
protect the Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right
to Life. The tragic deaths of Rajavan and his family underscore the urgent need for workplace
mental health policies to prevent similar incidents. The Constitution grants the High Court the
authority to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and addressing the systemic
failure in workplace mental health support falls within this jurisdiction. Additionally, the
absence of adequate mental health policies and organizational behavior training at the
workplace directly contributed to Rajavan's distress, necessitating judicial intervention to
mandate comprehensive mental health regulations to safeguard employees' well-being and

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 uphold constitutional rights.
ISSUE-III Whether the US based E-commerce platform ‘Flip deal’ is liable for facilitating
the sale of unprescribed medicine?
It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the US-based e-commerce platform
‘Flipdeal’ is liable for facilitating the sale of unprescribed medicine because it has allowed
the distribution of a dangerous drug, Calioregamantle, without proper regulation or
safeguards, thereby endangering public health. The petitioner, the NGO 'Centre for
Therapeutic Legal Healing,' argues that Flipdeal's failure to have a nodal officer or grievance
redressal mechanism in the Republic of Bharatha Nadu shows negligence in complying with
local laws and regulations. Furthermore, the misleading information about the medicine on
the platform, suggesting it had minimal side effects, directly contributed to the tragic deaths
of Rajavan and his family. Flipdeal's platform encouraged the purchase and consumption of
this restricted medicine without a prescription, violating consumer protection and public
health laws in Bharatha Nadu. The petitioner seeks the High Court's intervention to hold
Flipdeal accountable for its role in this incident and to prevent further harm to consumers by
enforcing stricter regulations on the sale of prescription medications online.

ISSUE IV - Whether the pharmaceutical company ‘Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.’ is liable for
manufacturing the drug which is contended to be dangerous for health?
It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the pharmaceutical company ‘Moon Pharmaceutical
Pvt. Ltd.’ is liable for manufacturing the drug Calioregamantle, which is contended to be dangerous for
health, as it failed to conduct necessary tests and adhere to safety regulations that would have revealed the
drug's potential for severe side effects, including heart attacks. The petitioner, the NGO 'Centre for
Therapeutic Legal Healing,' argues that the company's negligence in ensuring the drug's safety and its
subsequent availability on the market without proper warnings or restrictions directly contributed to the
tragic deaths of Rajavan and his family. This constitutes a violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Bharatha Nadu, which includes the right to health and protection against negligent behavior
by health service providers. The petitioner seeks the High Court's intervention to hold Moon Pharmaceutical
accountable for its gross negligence and to implement stricter regulations on the production and distribution
of pharmaceutical drugs to prevent such incidents in the future.

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-I: Whether the present case is maintainable in the High Court of Vikas Pradesh or
not?

It is humbly and most respectfully submitted by the Petitioner that the present case is indeed
maintainable in the High Court of Vikas Pradesh. The fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Bharatha Nadu, which include the right to life and the right to
holistic health, have been significantly violated. The High Court has the authority under Article
226 to issue writs to enforce these rights. The failures in workplace mental health regulations and
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs without prescription demand judicial intervention to protect
public health and safety. Below are detailed arguments supporting the maintainability of the case:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court

Article 226 of the Constitution of Bharatha Nadu: This article empowers the High Court to issue
directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
The petitioners are seeking enforcement of Article 21 rights, making this writ application well
within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Vikas Pradesh.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SCC 802), the Supreme Court held that
the right to life under Article 21 is comprehensive and includes the right to live with human
dignity, free from exploitation. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the state to protect this
right. The High Court of Vikas Pradesh, therefore, has the jurisdiction to address the petition's
concerns about workplace mental health and the sale of dangerous drugs.

2. Right to Life and Holistic Health

- *Article 21 of the Constitution*: Guarantees the right to life, encompassing the right to health
and a safe working environment. The absence of mental health policies and the sale of
unregulated, dangerous drugs infringe upon this fundamental right.

- *Health Act, 1956 (amended in 1996)*: This act includes the right to holistic health as part of
the right to life. Violations of this act, as seen in this case, further strengthen the need for judicial
10

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

review and intervention.

In case of the Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981 AIR
746), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and all
that goes along with it, including the right to health. The High Court has the authority to direct
the formulation of necessary guidelines to protect these rights.

3. Mental Harassment and Workplace Policies

- *Lack of Organizational Behavior Policies*: The workplace did not have adequate policies to
address mental harassment and psychological assessment, breaching the duty of care owed by
employers to their employees. A directive for policy guidelines is necessary to protect
employees’ mental health.

In the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011), the Supreme Court issued
guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. Similar guidelines for mental health are
needed to ensure a safe and supportive work environment.

4. Liability of the E-commerce Platform and Pharmaceutical Company

- *Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA)*: The e-commerce platform, Flipdeal, misled
consumers by providing inaccurate information about the medicine. This act protects consumers
against hazardous goods and misleading advertisements, making Flipdeal liable for its actions.

- *Absence of Grievance Redressal Mechanism*: Flipdeal’s lack of a nodal officer or grievance

redressal mechanism in Bharatha Nadu violates consumer rights and contributes to the
unregulated sale of harmful products.

- *Pharmaceutical Company Liability*: Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. failed to conduct

necessary tests and allowed the drug to be easily available without prescription, violating
statutory regulations and endangering public health.

5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

- *Nature of the Petition*: The NGO’s petition addresses broader public health and safety
concerns, making it a valid PIL. The High Court has the authority to entertain PILs that seek to
enforce the rights of the public at large.
11

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

- *Precedent: In **M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 SCR (1) 819)*, the Supreme Court
allowed a PIL concerning environmental protection. Similarly, the present case involves public
health and safety, warranting judicial intervention.

6. International Obligations

- *Universal Declaration of Human Rights*: Articles 3 and 25 emphasize the right to life and an
adequate standard of living, including health. Bharatha Nadu’s constitutional provisions and
health laws reflect these international standards, and their enforcement is necessary to uphold
these rights.

Therefore, based on the facts on record, it can be inferred that the present case is maintainable in
the High Court of Vikas Pradesh. The petitioners seek enforcement of fundamental rights and
statutory protections related to health and workplace safety. The court should consider issuing
directives to establish mental health policies at workplaces and hold the e-commerce platform
accountable for misleading consumers and selling dangerous unprescribed medicines. The case
addresses significant public interest issues and aligns with constitutional and statutory mandates.

12

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

ISSUE II- Whether the High Court of Vikas Pradesh can direct for
formulation of Mental Health Regulation related laws and policy
guidelines?
It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the tragic death of
Rajavan and his family due to workplace harassment and the unregulated sale of a dangerous
drug underscores the urgent need for regulatory intervention. The High Court of Vikas Pradesh
has both the jurisdiction and the responsibility to direct the formulation of laws and guidelines
addressing these critical issues. This is not only a matter of protecting individual rights but also
of fulfilling the state’s duty to safeguard public health and welfare.

01. State’s Duty to Protect

The state has a duty to protect the mental health of its citizens, especially in workplaces. This
obligation is reinforced by the principles of Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution,
which guide the state in framing policies for the welfare of its people.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802), the Supreme Court held that the state
must take positive action to ensure fundamental rights. The High Court can direct the formulation of
mental health regulations as part of this duty.

02. Judicial Activism

The judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring justice. In the
absence of specific legislation on workplace mental health, judicial directives are essential to fill this
gap. The Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998 AIR 889) emphasized the
need for judicial activism to address legislative and executive inaction.

03. Comprehensive Health Policies

The Constitution and the Health Act mandate a holistic approach to health, including mental health.
The High Court can direct the formulation of comprehensive health policies to ensure this. In Paschim
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996 AIR 2426), the Supreme Court directed the
13

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

state to provide adequate medical facilities, underscoring the judiciary's role in health-related issues.

04. Precedents of High Courts Issuing Guidelines

High Courts in India have issued guidelines in the absence of legislation to protect fundamental rights.
In the case of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India (1995 AIR 2969), the
Supreme Court issued guidelines to protect the rights of domestic workers. Similarly, the High Court
can direct the formulation of workplace mental health guidelines.

05. Mental Health Crisis

The increasing incidence of mental health issues in workplaces necessitates immediate regulatory
intervention to protect employees' rights. In the case of CESC Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose (1992
AIR 573), the Supreme Court recognized the right to health and a safe working environment as
essential for workers' well-being.

06. Accountability of E-commerce Platforms

The regulation of online sales of dangerous drugs is crucial to public health. Platforms like Flipdeal
must be held accountable for misleading consumers about the safety of products. In the case of Google
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd. (2012 (3) ALD 381), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that
intermediaries are liable for content that violates the law. Similarly, Flipdeal should be held liable for
selling dangerous drugs without prescriptions.

07. Public Health and Safety

Ensuring public health and safety is a fundamental duty of the state. The judiciary's intervention is
necessary to address the public health risks posed by the availability of dangerous drugs online. In the
case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991 AIR 420), the Supreme Court emphasized the state's
duty to ensure public health and safety.

08. Global Standards and Practices

Many jurisdictions have strict regulations for workplace mental health and online drug sales. Bharatha
Nadu should emulate these international best practices. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v.
Union of India (1995 AIR 922), the Supreme Court underscored the need to adopt international
standards for workers' health and safety.

14

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

09. Legislative Inaction
The absence of proactive legislative measures on workplace mental health calls for judicial directives.
In Vineet Narain's case, the Supreme Court highlighted the judiciary's role in addressing legislative
inaction. The High Court can similarly step in to address the urgent need for mental health regulations.

10. Protection of Vulnerable Groups

Employees facing mental health issues due to workplace conditions are a vulnerable group that requires
immediate protection through regulatory guidelines. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (1993 AIR 217), the Supreme Court emphasized the protection of vulnerable groups
under Article 21.

11. Long-term Public Health Strategy

Directing the formulation of mental health regulations will contribute to a long-term strategy for
sustainable public health in Bharatha Nadu. In the case of State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla
(1997 AIR 1225), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of a comprehensive health strategy for
ensuring public welfare.

The High Court of Vikas Pradesh has the authority and responsibility to direct the formulation of
Mental Health Regulation related laws and policy guidelines. This intervention is crucial to protect the
fundamental right to life and health under Article 21, ensure workplace safety, and hold accountable
those who contribute to public health risks. The petitioners' request for judicial intervention is justified
and necessary to address the critical gaps in existing regulations and safeguard the well-being of the
citizens.

15

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15
ISSUE III: Whether the US based E-commerce platform ‘Flip deal’ is liable for facilitating
the sale of unprescribed medicine?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the petitioner,
‘Centre for Therapeutic Legal Healing’, argues that Flipdeal should be held liable for facilitating
the sale of the dangerous drug Calioregamantle, which contributed to the fatalities. This
argument is grounded in the principles of consumer protection, public health safety, and the
responsibility of e-commerce platforms to ensure the safety and legality of products sold on their
sites.

Violation of Consumer Protection Laws

Flipdeal's actions can be deemed a violation of consumer protection laws, which mandate the
safety and transparency of products sold to consumers. In the case of Dr. B.L. Wadehra v. Union
of India (AIR 1996 Delhi 324)*, the Delhi High Court emphasized that sellers must ensure the
safety and proper labeling of their products to protect consumers from harm. Flipdeal failed in
this duty by allowing the sale of a potentially lethal drug without proper prescription
requirements and safety warnings.

Furthermore, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in Bharatha Nadu, ensures that consumers
have the right to be protected against hazardous goods. The Act also mandates that sellers
provide accurate information about the products they sell. Flipdeal’s listing of Calioregamantle,
with misleading information that downplayed its dangerous side effects, constitutes a clear
violation of these provisions.

Duty of Care and Negligence

The e-commerce platform has a duty of care towards its consumers to prevent harm that could
arise from the sale of dangerous products. In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC
562)*, which introduced the principle that manufacturers (and by extension, sellers) owe a duty
of care to their consumers. Flipdeal breached this duty by not ensuring that the medicine they
16

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

facilitated the sale of was safe and legally compliant.

Additionally, the Supreme Court of Bharatha Nadu, in the case of Consumer Education and
Research Centre v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 922), highlighted that the right to health and
safety is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. By allowing the sale of an
unprescribed and dangerous drug, Flipdeal infringed upon this fundamental right, leading to the
untimely deaths of Rajavan and his family.

Cross-border Jurisdiction and Accountability

Even though Flipdeal is based in the United States, its operations extend into Bharatha Nadu,
making it subject to the country's laws and regulations. In the case of Google India Private
Limited v. Visaka Industries (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1365)*, the Supreme Court held that foreign
entities operating in India are bound by Indian laws, especially when their activities have a direct
impact on Indian consumers. Hence, Flipdeal cannot evade liability simply because it is based
abroad.

Misleading Advertising and Lack of Proper Redressal Mechanism

Flipdeal's advertisement of Calioregamantle as a safe and effective antidepressant, without

mentioning its severe side effects, constitutes misleading advertising. The Supreme Court, in the
case of Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL (AIR 1995 SC 2438)*, recognized the importance of truthful
advertising and the detrimental impact of misleading information on consumers. By failing to
provide accurate information and lacking a local grievance redressal mechanism, Flipdeal
violated the legal and ethical standards expected of businesses operating in Bharatha Nadu.

Hence, with specific reference to the facts on record, case laws and the obligations under
consumer protection and public health laws, it is most respectfully submitted that the Flipdeal is
liable for facilitating the sale of unprescribed and dangerous medicines. The High Court of Vikas
Pradesh has the authority to direct appropriate actions against Flipdeal, ensuring the protection of
consumers and the enforcement of legal and ethical standards in e-commerce. This intervention
is crucial to prevent such tragic incidents in the future and to uphold the fundamental rights of
the citizens of Bharatha Nadu.
17

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

ISSUE IV- WHETHER THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY ‘MOON PHARMACEUTICAL PVT.
LTD.’ IS LIABLE FOR MANUFACTURING THE DRUG WHICH IS CONTENDED TO BE
DANGEROUS FOR HEALTH?

It is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble court that the tragic incident involving the
deaths of Rajavan and his family due to the consumption of Calioregamantle, a drug manufactured by Moon
Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd., raises critical questions about the company's responsibility for ensuring the safety and
efficacy of its products. The petitioner, ‘Centre for Therapeutic Legal Healing’, argues that Moon
Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. should be held liable for producing and distributing a drug that posed significant health
risks without proper testing and regulatory compliance.

Breach of Duty of Care and Negligence

Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. has a legal and ethical duty of care to ensure that the drugs it manufactures and
distributes are safe for consumption and do not pose undue risks to the public. This duty was clearly established
in the case of *Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC 562)*, where it was held that manufacturers owe a duty of care
to the end consumers of their products. In this case, Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. breached this duty by failing
to conduct necessary tests and by releasing a drug that is restricted in other jurisdictions due to its potential to
cause heart attacks.

The principles set forth in *Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 922)*
also support the petitioner’s argument. The Supreme Court held that the right to health and safety is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. By neglecting to ensure the safety of Calioregamantle,
Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. infringed upon this fundamental right, directly contributing to the fatal
consequences suffered by Rajavan and his family.

Violation of Regulatory Standards

The Health Act of 1956, as amended in 1996, mandates strict regulatory standards for the manufacture and
distribution of pharmaceutical products to ensure public safety. Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. violated these
regulatory standards by failing to conduct comprehensive safety tests on Calioregamantle and by distributing the
drug without adequate safety warnings and prescription requirements.

18

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

In the case of *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 965)*, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of adhering to regulatory standards to prevent harm to the public. The court held that manufacturers
are liable for any damage caused by their failure to comply with safety regulations. Similarly, Moon
Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.'s failure to comply with the necessary safety protocols for Calioregamantle makes it
liable for the harm caused to Rajavan and his family.

Misrepresentation and Lack of Transparency

Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. also misled consumers by not adequately disclosing the potential side effects and
risks associated with Calioregamantle. The Drug and Cosmetic Act, as applicable in Bharatha Nadu, requires
that all pharmaceutical products must include clear and accurate information about their uses, side effects, and
contraindications. The company's failure to provide this information constitutes a breach of consumer protection
laws and amounts to misrepresentation.

The case of *Dale and Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212* highlights the
importance of transparency and accurate information in commercial transactions. The Supreme Court held that
companies must provide truthful and comprehensive information to protect consumers from harm. Moon
Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.'s failure to do so in the case of Calioregamantle further underscores its liability.

Hence, with specific reference to the facts on record, case laws and the obligations under consumer
protection and public health laws, it is most respectfully submitted that the Moon Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
is liable for manufacturing and distributing a dangerous drug without proper testing and safety
warnings. The High Court of Vikas Pradesh has the authority to hold the company accountable for its
negligence and to direct appropriate measures to prevent such incidents in the future. This intervention
is essential to uphold the right to health and safety of the citizens of Bharatha Nadu and to ensure that
pharmaceutical companies adhere to the highest standards of safety and transparency.

19

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 20

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

21

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION

 JSS LAW COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) – MOOT: 01 – V SEMESTER LL. B TC-15

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The writ petition filed by the NGO is maintainable

2. The police have not acted within the bounds of law of the alleged encounter.

3. The media trial by the public has bearing on the criminal procedure in the instant case.

AND/OR
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favor of the Complainant to meet the ends of
justice, equity and good conscience. For this act of Kindness, the Complainant shall duty-bound
forever pray.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

SD/-

22

MEMORIALS ON BEHLAF OF THE PROSECUTION