TEAM CODE: i

2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDRADWAJA

STATE OF
HANSA________________________________________________PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF
PANCHTARA________________________________________RESPONDENT

UPON SUMISSION TO THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDRADHWAJA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS..3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......4

a. STATUTES........4

b. LIST OF CASES4

c. BOOKS...5

d. DICTIONARIES .......5

e. WEBSITES REFERRED...6

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...7

4. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES.....8

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS.......9

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.......11

7. PLEADINGS.......13

8. PRAYER OF RELIEF..20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 2

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another
Art. Article
Co. Company
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
Honble Honourable
Ibid At the same place
J. Justice
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para/ Paragraph
Pg. Page
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union Of India
u/s Under Section
v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 3

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF STATUTES:

1. Indian Penal Code ,1860

2. Constitution of India

3. Criminal Procedure code,1973

4. General clause act,1897

5. Terrorist and Disruptive act,1987

6. Special police establishment act,1946

7. Armed force special provision act, 1983

LIST OF CASES:

1. Pramod isloor vs state of Karnataka, 1990 (2) crimes 296, 300 (kant-DB)

2. Maru ram vs union of india, AIR 1980 SC 2147 : (1981) 1 SCC 100 : 1980 CrLj 1440

3. Mohd. Munna vs union of india 2005 (7) SCC 417

4. 1384 and Mohinder singh vs state of punjab

5. State of madhya pradesh vs ratan singh (1967) SCC (Crl) 428: (1976 cri LJ 1192)

6. Ramaraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnun vs state of chattisgarh (CRL) 4614 2006

7. State of uttar pradesh vs sanjay kumar 2012 (8) SCC 537

8. Dalbir singh & ors vs State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC

9. AIR 2003 SC 3318, see also, V. Suresh vs St of Kerala( 2006) CRLJ, 4562 (4563,4564).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 4

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

10. Gopal VinayakGodse v State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 1 SC 600, See also, K

Pandurangan v S.R.R Vehisamy, AIR 2003 SC 3318.

11. Lalu Prasad yadav vs State of Bihar,(2010) 5 SCC 1

12. Swamy shraddananda vs State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767

LIST OF BOOKS:

1. Durga Dass Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edn, vol 1, Article 1 to 152

2. Durga Dass Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Edn, vol 1, Article 153 to end

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, RatanLal and Dhirajlal, 19th Edn.

4. The Constitution Of India, B.M.bakshi, 12th Edn.

5. The Constitutional Law of India, Dr. J.N. pandey, 50th Edn.

6. Criminal Law P.S.A. Pillai, 12th Edn.

7. A Hand Book of Criminal Law, S.Krishnamoorthi, 18th Edn.

DICTIONARIES REFERRED:

A. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 10 th Edn, 1999

B. Trayners Latin Maxim, 4th Edn, 1998

C. Whartons law lexicon, Universal law Publishing Co, 15th Edition.

WEBSITES REFFERRED:

1. www.SCConline.com

2. www.jstor,com

3. www.manupatra.com

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 5

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner submits this petition before the honorable Supreme Court of Indradhwaja invoking Article 32

of the Constitution of Indradhwaja.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 6

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IDENTIFICATION O F ISSUES

I. Whether F. I. R. No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was illegal as the acts formed part

of the same transaction which were purported to be investigated in offences registered under F. I.

R. No. 298/1998 of Panchatara State?

II. Whether the imprisonment for life means till the end of convicts life?

III. Whether after the refusal of the president to grant pardon/remission to the convicts of

F.I.R. No. 298/1998, the Union can give consent for the remission as required under Criminal

Procedure Code of Indradhwaja?

IV. Whether the provisions of Criminal procedure code of Indradhwaja can be used to grant

remissions after the exercise of powers by President and Governor under the Articles 72 and 161

respectively?

V. Whether the special Supreme Court order creating special category of sentence and putting

that category beyond remission is illegal and unconstitutional?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 7

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Indradhwaja is an Asian country whose socio-politico-legal order is similar to India. In

that majority of population follows Pihu religion. Other religion is soham which constitutes

about 25% of the population. Pihus are in majority..

Sasha was a very popular religious and spiritual preacher of Pihu religion which is a

neighboring state of Panchtara State.

Sasha was to deliver a lecture in Thar District of Panchtara State. When he reached the

venue several persons came forward to touch his feet as a mark of respect. In the meantime two

persons who were identified as Rimpo and Hardo also touched his feet and thereafter fired at

him. He was taken to Government Medical College and Hospital, Thar and was declared dead on

arrival.

FBI nabbed both the culprits from National Capital Territory when they were trying to flee

away from the country. An FIR No. 298/1998 was registered at Thar Police Station under Arms

Act, Indradhwaja Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Terrorist and Disruptive

Activities Act (TADA).

FIR No. 219/1998 was registered in Peru district of Hansa booking 7 persons including

Rimpo and Hardo. 1998. FBI investigation into FIR No. 298/1998 led to charge sheet of 12

persons under various provisions of Arms Act, IPC, TADA. All accused were sentenced to death

by Special Court and the same was confirmed by the High Court.

Mercy petition under Article 72 was rejected. The Supreme Court converted the death

sentence into life imprisonment.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 8

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

All the accused were charged with offences under the Arms Act, Explosive Substances

Act and IPC for various offences including planning, abetting and conspiring the murder of 3000

innocent persons.

Supreme Court passed an order stating that a special category of offenders can be put

beyond remission and ordered that all the seven convicts be sentenced to imprisonment till life

ends with no remissions.

State of Hansa wrote a letter to State of Panchtara contending that Rimpo and Hardo have

been sentenced to imprisonment for life till life ends with no remission by the Supreme Court of

India in offences registered under FIR No. 219/1998 in the State of Hansa.

A PIL was filed by an NGO namely HELP based in Panchtara in Supreme Court of

Indradhwaja for securing the release of Rimpo and Hardo on the ground that they have

already suffered more than 15 years in jail.

State of Hansa has claimed that after the exercise of pardoning powers under Articles 72

and 162, further remission by the State of Panchtara is illegal and unconstitutional. It has also

claimed that once the President has refused to grant pardon/remission to the convicts of FIR No.

298/1998. PIL, Review Petition of Union of Indradhwaja and Petition filed by State of Hansa

were clubbed and were fixed for hearing before the three judge bench of the Supreme Court of

Indradhwaja..

A Seven Judge bench has been constituted by the Supreme Court of Indradhwaja to decide

the case. Constitution of Indradhwaja is analogous to Constitution of India; Federal Special

Police Establishment Act is analogous to Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; CrPC of

Indradhwaja; TADA Act of Indradhwaja and IPC

All laws of Indradhwaja are analogous to laws of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 9

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was legal and acts performed did not

form part of same transaction.

o FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was legal.

1) That the FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state was legal. The F.I.R No. 219/1998
Registered in Peru district of Hansa state booking 7 persons including Hardo and Rimpo was
because the police had raided at the house occupied by Hardo and Rimpo and discovered highly
explosive substances, bombs, arms and ammunition.
2) 3000 persons belonging to both the religions were died in the worst ever riot in the history
of Indradhwaja.
o Acts performed did not form part of same transaction.

1) The F.I.R No.219/1998 was legal. F.I.R No. 298/1998 registered in Panchtara state and the

F.I.R No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state did not form same transaction. The F.I.R No.

298/1998 registered on Hardo and Rimpo in Panchtara for killing Sasha a religious preacher of

Pihus who belongs to Hansa state.

Duration of life imprisonment means till death of convicts life.

i. In Life imprisonment there is no particular time fixed in criminal procedure code.

Life imprisonment till end of life convicts. Serving of mandatory minimum

sentence of imprisonment, cannot be bar for premature release by giving him the

benefit of remission under the rules and set-off of pre-conviction detention

ii. The sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as

imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicts natural life.

Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 or 20 years and

that it actually means imprisonment for the whole natural life of convict

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 10

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Unions power to consent remission under Criminal Procedure Code of Indradhwaja

is ultravires to the Constitution of Indradhwaja.

After the refusal of the president to grant pardon/remission the union can give consent for the

remission since there are appropriate provisions in the code of criminal procedure of

indradhwaja for the above said. Because section 432 (1) says that when any person has been

sentenced to punishment for an offence the appropriate govt may at any time without

conditions or upon any condition which the person sentenced accepts suspend the execution of

his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code of Indradhwaja granting remission after

exercise of Presidential power is ultra-vires to the Constitution of Indradhwaja.

In this case state of Panchtara decided to remit the sentences of all convicts contending that

they have suffered more than 16 years of incarceration, under criminal procedure code. It is

unconstitutional, because state of Panchtara is not an appropriate government.

Special Supreme Court creating special category of sentence and putting that

category beyond remission justified.

i. A special court can be formed for a very few criminal cases with the permission of

the supreme court. Special courts have the power to give death sentence and life

imprisonment for the convicts.

ii. Special court can create a special category of sentence for the convicts in criminal

cases.

iii. Special category of sentence beyond remission is constitutional as this does not

affect the persons life. They are punished because of their illegal activities.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 11

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PLEADINGS

I. FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was legal and acts performed did not

form part of same transaction.

a. FIR No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa State was legal.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed that the FIR No.

219/1998 registered in Hansa state was legal. The F.I.R No. 219/1998 Registered in Peru district

of Hansa state booking 7 persons including Hardo and Rimpo was because the police had raided

at the house occupied by Hardo and Rimpo and discovered highly explosive substances, bombs,

arms and ammunition. Police also founded some printed material aimed at spreading hatred

among Pihus and Sohams. They also spread communal hatred leading to riots. They ordered

merciless killing of Pihus. Their main motive is to spread communal hatred and riots. So they

killed Sasha and riots broke out in Hansa state. 3000 persons belonging to both the religions

were died in the worst ever riot in the history of Indradhwaja. The F.I.R No. 219/1998 was

registered mainly because of spreading religious hatred and riots among the Pihus. A fact with

different version in lodgin of 2 FIR is permissible1. In present case, its not counter claim our

facts are different from FIR NO.2982 Thus the F.I.R No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state on

10th August 1998 was legal

a. Acts performed did not form part of same transaction.

The F.I.R No.219/1998 was legal. F.I.R No. 298/1998 registered in Panchtara state

and the F.I.R No. 219/1998 registered in Hansa state did not form same transaction. The F.I.R

1
Bahubai v State of Kerala & others (2010) 12 SCC 254
2
Surrender kaushik v State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) (6) SCC

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 12

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

No. 298/1998 registered on Hardo and Rimpo in Panchtara for killing Sasha a religious preacher

of Pihus who belongs to Hansa state. The F.I.R 298/1998 was filed under IPC, TADA and the

F.I.R No. 219/1998 was registered for spreading religious hatred and riots among Pihus and

Sohams. However, both the F.I.Rs were filed on Hardo and Rimpo they didnt form same

transaction as they were registered for two different reasons.

In Ram Lal Narang vs Om prakash Narang & Anr, court considering the question as to whether

investigation and further proceedings on the basis of both the FIRs was permissible held that no

straitjacket formula can be laid down in this regard. The only test whether two FIRs can be

permitted to exist was whether the two conspiracies were identical or not. Thus in this case both

the FIRs filed on Hardo and Rimpo were off for different reasons thus they did no form a same

transaction

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 13

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

II. Duration of life imprisonment means till death of convicts life.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed that in Life

imprisonment there is no particular time fixed in criminal procedure code. Life imprisonment till

end of life convicts. Serving of mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, cannot be bar for

premature release by giving him the benefit of remission under the rules and set-off of pre-

conviction detention3. The sentence of life imprisonment for life is one of imprisonment for the

whole of the remaining period of the convicted persons natural life, its not compulsory to

release after 16 years Jail life of once we realize the truism that a life sentence for whole life 4.

The sentence of imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as imprisonment for the

whole of the remaining period of the convicts natural life5. Life imprisonment cannot be

equivalent to imprisonment for 14 or 20 years and that it actually means imprisonment for the

whole natural life of convict6. In this case three judge bench of supreme court clearly mentioned

life imprisonment till end of convicts life. Section 57 of Indian Penal code says, calculating

fraction of terms of punishment, for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for

3
Pramod isloor v State of Karnataka, 1990 (2) crimes 296, 300 (kant-DB)
4
Maru ram v union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2147 : (1981) 1 SCC 100 : 1980 CrLj 1440
5
Mohd. Munna v Union of India 2005 (7) SCC 417
6
State of Uttar Pradesh v Sanjay Kumar 2012 (8) SCC 537 see also, Dalbir singh & ors v State of Punjab AIR 1979

SC 1384 and Mohinder Singh v State of Punjab

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 14

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

twenty years. There is misconception that a prisoner serving life sentence has an indefeasible

right to be released on completion of either 14 or 20 years, the prisoner have no such right. A

convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till end of his life ,

subject any remission granted by appropriate by the appropriate government. In the various

decisions rendered after godses case, imprisonment for life has been repeatedly held to mean

imprisonment for the natural life of the convicts. Imprisonment for life means sentence for entire

life, which does not expire automatically at end of twenty years including remission, because the

rules framed under various Jail Manuals under the prison act cannot supersede the statutory

provision of Indian penal code7. The contention having regard to the provision of section 57 IPC,

a prisoner entitled to release after completing 20 years court rejected 8. Duration life sentence till

end of life, in this case three judge bench of supreme court order, imprisonment till life end

without remission. It would not open to the court to make any special category of sentence in

substitution of death penalty and put that category beyond application of remission

7
State of Madhya Pradesh v Ratan Singh (1967) SCC (Crl) 428: (1976 cri LJ 1192)
8
Ramaraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnun v State of Chhattisgarh (CRL) 4614 2006

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 15

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

III. Unions power to consent remission under Criminal Procedure Code of Indradhwaja

is ultravires to the Constitution of Indradhwaja.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed that after the

refusal of the president to grant pardon/remission the union can give consent for the remission

since there are appropriate provisions in the code of criminal procedure of Indradhwaja for the

above said. Because section 432 (1) says that when any person has been sentenced to punishment

for an offence the appropriate govt may at any time without conditions or upon any condition

which the person sentenced accepts suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or

any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced. Section 432 (7) provides that the

appropriate government is the union govt. According to the rationale laid down in K

Pandurangan v S.R.R Vehisamy9the right to grant remission to a sentenced convict is governed

by the provisions of Sec 432 which vests the said power with appropriate government and no in

any court. This clearly can be used to provide that the Union Government can provide a

remission for the death row convicts in the present case. The grant of remission is a matter of

policy and it is for the executive branch of the government to decide as to when, to what extent

and in what manner remission is to be granted. This clearly shows that the government is the

ultimate authority to decide on granting pardon to a sentenced convict and not the executive head

9
AIR 2003 SC 3318, see also, V. Suresh v St of Kerala( 2006) CRLJ, 4562 (4563,4564).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 16

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

of the state. The question of remission rests exclusively within the province of the appropriate

government10.In the light of the above authorities cited, it can easily be understood that the

executive has no power no power with regard to this issue. The union government can give a

remission to the convicts as they have were in jail for more than 15 years and 14 years being the

minimum time a prisoner convicted for life imprisonment has to undergo.

10
Gopal VinayakGodse v State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 1 SC 600, See also, K Pandurangan v S.R.R Vehisamy,

AIR 2003 SC 3318.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 17

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IV. Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code of Indradhwaja granting remission after

exercise of Presidential power is ultra-vires to the Constitution of Indradhwaja.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed, in this case state of

Panchtara decided to remit the sentences of all convicts contending that they have suffered more

than 16 years of incarceration, under criminal procedure code. It is unconstitutional, because

state of Panchtara is not an appropriate government. This case investigated by Federal bureau of

investigation (FBI), union power extended in this case. According to section Sec 432 (7)(a),

Union is appropriate government in this case. No order of suspension, remission or commutation

of sentences passed by the state government in relation to a person, who has been convicted an

offences, some of which relate to matters to which the executive power of the union extends

under section 435 (2). In this case, entire investigation made and handover to CBI , at this stage,

the state cannot claim that it is the appropriate government11. Once the death sentence of a

convict has been commuted into life imprisonment , the same has interpreted to entire life of the

convicts and executive cannot exercise the power of remission of sentence thereafter12. There is

inability for premature release for state, because they are comes under capital offence. Certain

catogries of convicted prisoners undergoing life sentence would be entitled to be considered for

pre-mature release only after undergoing imprisonment for twenty years including remissions, in

this case they are not completed twenty years of life imprisonment and they are filed under Arms

act and terrorist disruptive Act, so state government didnt have any power to remission of

sentence.

11
Lalu Prasad yadav v State of Bihar,(2010) 5 SCC 1
12
Swamy Shraddananda v State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 18

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

V. Special Supreme Court creating special category of sentence and putting that

category beyond remission justified.

i. Special Court is constitutional.

It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that instant petition filed , a special court can

be formed for a very few criminal cases with the permission of the Supreme Court. Special

courts have the power to give death sentence and life imprisonment for the convicts. The appeal

can be made from the special court to the supreme court and thus the special court is

constitutionally valid and are justified

ii. Order creating special category of sentence is legal.

Special court can create a special category of sentence for the convicts in criminal cases. The

special court created by the supreme court is legal and they have the power to create a special

category of sentence with the permission of the supreme court and thus the special category of

sentence is legal.

iii. Special category of sentence beyond remission is constitutional.

Special category of sentence beyond remission is constitutional as this does not affect the

persons life. They are punished because of their illegal activities. IPC has special provisions for

the special category of sentence beyond remission. Thus the special category of sentence

beyond remission is constitutional

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 19

 2ND DHAWANI MANOCHA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most

humbly requested before this honorable Supreme Court to:

I. Declare and adjudge that F.I.R. NO.219/1998 registered in the Hansa State was legal as

the acts formed part of the some transaction which purported to be investigated in offences

registered under F.I.R. NO.298/1998 of Panchtara state.

II. Declare and adjudge that Imprisonment for life means till the end of convicts life

III. Declare and adjudge that Union cannot give consent for remission as required under

criminal procedure code of Indradhwaja.

IV. Declare and adjudge that Provisions of CrPC cannot be used to grant remission after the

exercise of power by President and Governor under Article 71 and 161 respectively.

V. Declare and adjudge that special supreme court order creating special category of

sentence and putting that category beyond remission is illegal and unconstitutional.

And pass any order/orders in equity, justice and good conscience

Respectfully Submitted

Council for Petitioners

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER Page 20