R 412

1
TEAM CODE: R-412
______________________________________________________________________________
“LOI FIESTA- 2019”: 4th NATIONAL LAW FESTIVAL OF CPJ SCHOOL OF LAW
NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WONDERLAND
______________________________________________________________________________
MR. CHAWLA (PETITIONER)
V.
UNION OF ESSELWORLD (RESPONDENT)
______________________________________________________________________________
SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WONDERLAND
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
- MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT-
UNION OF WONDERLAND
2
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………….. III
Books………………………………………………………………………………. iii
Bare Acts……………………………………………………………………………iii
Websites…………………………………………………………………………….iv
Cases………………………………………………………………………………..v, vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………..VIII, IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………….X
SUMMARY OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………XI, XII
ARGUMENT ADVANCED………………………………………………………………...1
1. The writ petition filed u/a 226 and 227 invoking the inherent powers u/s 482 of
CrPC not maintainable…………………………………………………………..
2. The FIR filed against the accused not frivolous and should not be quashed
2.1 the FIR filed against the accused not frivolous…………………………
2.2. FIR against the accused should not be quashed……………………....
3. The accused being exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings not a valid ground
for quashing of FIR………………………………………………………………11
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………..XIII
3
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
__________________________________________________________
BOOKS
______________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Procedure by R.V. Kelkar
Code of Criminal Procedue by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
The Code of Criminal Procedure by Sarkar
The Law of Evidence by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
Commentary on Prevention of Corruption Act by A.S. Ramachandra Rao
Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu
__________________________________________________________
BARE ACTS
______________________________________________________________________________
The Constitution of India

4
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
________________________________________________________
WEBSITES
______________________________________________________________________________
indiankanoon.com
mondaq.com
legalcrystal.com
egazatte.nic.com
globallegalinsights.com
researchgate.net
vakilno1.com
legalservicesindia.com
scconline.com
economictimes.com
indiatimes.com
cbi.gov.in
5
vakilsearch.in
casemine.com
livelaw.in
__________________________________________________________
CASES
______________________________________________________________________________
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal (2014) 1 SCC 603
M/S Maa Durga Enterprises v. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority and Others
Mina Perween v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors MAT 515 of 2018 decided on June 25, 2018
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Ors. Vs. Mathew K.C. 2014 (1) SCC 603
Mina Perween v. State of W.B.,2018 SCC On Line Cal 3962, decided on 25-06-2018
Supriya Basu & Ors v. W.B. Housing Board & Ors (2005) SC
Binny Ltd & another v. Sadasivan & Ors (2005) SC
Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors (1969) SC
Mushtaq Ahmed vs. State of Karnataka (1983) 1 KLJ 276

6
Dr.S.M.Kalligudd and others vs. State of Karnataka 1998 (1) KLJ 252
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Virendra Kumar Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533
Sri.Govindaraju vs. State of Karnataka 2008 6 KLJ 718
Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and ors. AIR 2008 SC 1614
Ashok Kumar Kirtiwar and Another Vs. State of M.P. 2001 CriLJ 2785
C. Rangaswamaiah and Others Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and Others AIR 1998 SC 2496;
Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. (2007) 2 CALLT 37(SC)
Mahadevappa Vs. Karnataka Lokayuktha and anr ILR 2009 KAR 947
State of Maharashtra Vs. Siraz Ahmed Nisar Ahmed and ors. AIR 2007 SC 1859
Mohmed AmIn @ AmIn Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh and anr. Vs. C.B.i. 2009 (57) BLJR 529;
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. 1999 (2) RSJ 318
Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur and Anr. v. Ramchandra and Ors. 1981
(2) S.L.R. 274
Jang Bahadur Singh vs Baij Nath Tiwari 1969 AIR 30
Sarita Kumari and Ors. v. The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Ors. 1995 (1) P.L.R.
495
Bhaskar Mondal v. UCO Bank and Ors. 2002(4) SLR 601
ASI Sham Lal v. State of Haryana 2004 Vol. 1 Service Law Reporter 796
7
[STATEMENT OF JURISDITION]
The High Court of Wonderland has the jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose off the present
petition of Habeas Corpus by virtue of Article 32 of The Constitution of Esselworld. The Article
reads as:
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
Whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
8
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]
1. The state of Wonderland in Esselworld has been hard hit by the problem of corruption in
public offices. The state government decided to setup a Special Task Force by the name of
Bhrashtachar Nirodhak Bureau (BNB) on 27/06/2018.
2. The office of BNB was declared to be a police station which empowered police officers under
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Mr. Ramesh who applied for a water connection was asked for bribe by Mr. Chawla
(Accused). Ramesh reported to BNB and accordingly a trap was planned and accused accepted
the bribe and was accused being a public servant, in discharge of his official duties, demanded,
and accepted and obtained Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification.
4. Departmental inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer observed that “the evidence on
record does not substantiate the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and
accordingly recorded that the charge against the accused had not been proven due to lack of
evidence in record. In consequence, the accused was not suspended.
5. On 27/09/2018, the BNB office received another information that Mr. Chawla had amassed
assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The bank statements, property
documents etc. were inspected and a report was prepared based on this inspection.
6. An FIR was registered and raids were conducted without warrant and documents were seized.
The Head, BNB also ordered the attachment of property of the accused without forwarding the
report to the Magistrate.
9
7. The accused has approached the High Court of Wonderland. He contested the registration of
FIR and investigation conducted against him is illegal and unconstitutional as per the provisions
of Criminal procedure Code and The Prevention of Corruption Act and the Constitution of
Esselworld and hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. He also contended that since he had been
exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings by a speaking order so on this ground alone, the FIR
against him should be quashed and set aside.
10
[STATEMENT OF ISSUES]
The respondent impugns following issues for consideration:
ISSUE 1:
Whether or not the writ petition filed u/a 226 and 227 invoking the inherent powers u/s 482 of
CrPC maintainable?
ISSUE 2:
Whether or not the FIR filed against the accused frivolous and should be quashed?
ISSUE 3:
Whether or not the accused being exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings a valid ground for
quashing of FIR?
11
[SUMMARY OF ISSUES]
1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 AND 227 INVOKING THE
INHERENT POWERS U/S 482 OF CRPC NOT MAINTAINABLE
The counsel most humbly presents this submission before the Hon’ble bench that the writ
petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would also
be not maintainable. In the present petitions it was urged that notwithstanding the above legal
position, as to no fundamental rights of the accused are being infringed so the powers of this
Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC remained
untrammeled. Hence, making the writ petition not maintainable.
2. THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOT FRIVOLOUS AND

SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED
The counsel most humbly presents this submission before the Hon’ble bench that the public
servant obtained gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal
means to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such
public servant to show favor to render or attempt to render any service is liable and hence the
FIR is not frivolous. Therefore, the FIR filed against the accused is not frivolous.
12
[SUMMARY OF ISSUES]
3. THE ACCUSED BEING EXONERATED IN THE DISCIPLINARY

PROCEEDINGS NOT A VALID GROUND FOR QUASHING OF FIR
petition departmental inquiry is distinct from a formal criminal trial where the provisions of
Evidence Act and CrPC are strictly applicable. The technical rules of evidence are not applicable
in a departmental inquiry and the standard of proof required in departmental inquiry is
preponderance of probability whereas in a criminal trial it requires proof beyond doubt. Hence,
the accused being exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding is not a valid ground for quashing of
FIR.
13
[ARGUMENT ADVANCED]
__________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 1
Whether or not the writ petition filed u/a 226 and 227 invoking the inherent powers u/s 482
of CrPC maintainable?
______________________________________________________________________________
petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not
be maintainable.
Here, the question of maintainability does not come in play; maintainability of writ petition
where there is existence of remedy for redressal by a statutory authority or say that when there
are statutory remedy available.
Mr. Chawla did not carry any other alternative remedy for his arrest, he directly applied and filed
for a habeas corpus petition which is invoking the inherent powers.
In addition to this, a person acquires a locus standi, when he has to have a personal or individual
right which has been violated or threatened to be violated. Since, no right of petitioner has been
infringed, he has no locus standi before the Court, making the writ petition filed u/a 226 and 227
not maintainable.
14
In Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India1– it was held

that Petitioner must exhaust its alternative remedy before the State Commission and
should not directly come to High Court.
Similarly in this case, Mr. Chawla did not exercise and exhaust his alternative remedy before the
state commission and the district court and directly came to the High Court of Wonderland with
a writ petition for his defence.
It is also opined that undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite existence of an alternative remedy. 2
However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy
available to the petitioner, Mr. Chawla could have approached an alternative remedy and he has
approached the High Court without availing the same and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of Esselworld.
A writ is exercised:
1
2011 14(SCC) 337
2
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal (2014) 1 SCC 603
15
(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights;
(ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or;
(iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an
Act and is challenged.
So according to this,
(i) Mr. Chawla’s fundamental rights were not violated as he was arrested by course
of action of the law.
(ii) the principle of natural justice was followed during his arrest as he was not
handcuffed but was caught red handed with amassed assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income.
(iii) the proceedings and orders were with jurisdiction vis-à-vis to the Chapter five of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the arrest of persons. Section 41
is the main section providing for situations when Police may arrest without
warrant.
The issue under which Mr. Chawla was arrested and prosecuted was a
cognizable offence and credible information was received which lead to a
reasonable suspicion and later was searched by the BNB office. Hence, under S.
42 of the CrPC, the process was done under reasonable measures.
16
______________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 2
Whether or not the FIR filed against the accused frivolous and should be quashed?-
______________________________________________________________________________
The counsel most humbly presents this submission before the Hon’ble bench that the public
servant obtained gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal
means to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such
public servant to show favor to render or attempt to render any service is liable.
2.1. THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOT FRIVOLOUS
The FIR which has been registered against Mr. Chawla is registered under Section 13 (e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 states that –
“A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- if he or any

person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in
possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or
property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
A known income is said to be the income received from any lawful source and such
receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the
time being applicable to a public servant.
17
In this case, the BNB office received information from its trusted sources that Mr. Chawla had
amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income i.e. the income which he was
earning was not proportional to the assets which he owned.
Also, the bank statements, property documents etc. were inspected as well and it was
found out that he had ample amount of money which was not possible in the limited income he
was getting from his day-to-day job. Hence, it was reported by the head of the BNB Office on
the same day stating that “based on the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that a prima
facie case is made out against the accused and it is hereby directed that a case be registered and
investigation be initiated against the accused”
It is contended that Mr. Chawla obtained illegal gratification because such possession of
assets was only possible when he has obtained gratification other than his legal remuneration.
According to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stating that a public servant
taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act and Section 8 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stating that taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or
illegal means, to influence public servant will amount to corruption, making the FIR not
frivolous.
According to the PC Act, 1988, it is well understood that the following essentials amount
to the case of corruption:
i. The receiver must be a public servant.
ii. He must solicit or receive illegal gratification.
iii. He must have received the same as a motive or reward.
iv. It should be other than legal remuneration.
18
Mr. Chawla fulfil all the needs and essentials which make his acts corrupt considering his actions
while Mr. Ramesh wanted to applied for a water connection in the name of his father which got
cleared and was sent to Mr. Chawla; and later on while inspecting his disproportionate bank
records and property.
After collection of the source records of the bank statements/record and the property it was
necessary for the head of the BNB office to file a FIR for the subsequent proceedings against the
accused, Mr. Chawla.
In Sri T R Shivaramu vs Anti-Corruption Bureau3 it was stated that the police station had the
right to investigate the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence
investigated the accused Sri T.R. Shivaramu.
Similarly, in this case, vide a notification dated 28/06/2018, a notification was issued which
empowered police officers under Sec. 17(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to
investigate cases which were related to corruption. Hence, giving the rights to the police station
converted into a BNB a right to proceed with the investigations and do the subsequent
proceedings.
Hence, making the FIR filed against the accused, Mr. Chawla, not frivolous.
2.2 FIR AGAINST THE ACCUSED SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED
It was contented in the case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi4 which lead to
formation of four questions which told the essentials for quashing a FIR under Section 482 of the
3
22nd January 2017
4
(2013) 9 SCC 293
19
CrPC, the following questions have to be analyzed by the High Court:

i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable,
i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the
factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade
a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
iii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution / complainant; and / or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably
refuted by the prosecution / complainant?
iv) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and
hence, would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the questions is in affirmative, the Court should quash the proceedings by
exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC. But in this case, the accused, Mr. Chawla is not
on the affirmative side, they are dissenting.
Taking all the factors in play,
i) That the material to be taken in the play is not of sterling and impeccable quality.
ii) That the material submitted by the accused is not suffiecient to reject and overrule the
factual assertion contained in the FIR, there are no sufficient facts which may
persuade a reasonable prudent person to dismiss and condemn the facts as false
accusations.
iii) That the material relied upon by the accused has been refuted by the prosecution and
the material is justifiably refuted by the prosecution.
iv) That the proceedings of the trail would not result in any sort of abuse of the process
20
of the court and hence, will serve justice to the society.
Also, in the case of Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (5) there were further more
contentions which were added to the process of quashing of a FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC
which were generally related to solving of disputes by the parties among themselves which
involved a little flavour of civil nature or were related to commercial, financial nature.
The question of such a settlement doesn’t arise in the case of Mr. Chawla as his act is severe in
nature and is a bad remark on the society.
His bank records and habitual course of bribery is not of civil flavour but of a criminal nature as
it amounts to corruption and case of bribery, making his writ petition for quashing of the FIR on
the negative side.
Furthermore, the case of brings more light to the situation and gives more factors whether the
FIR should be quashed or not R P Kapur v. State of Punjab 6 -
i) Where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the criminal

proceedings.
ii) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence, even if taken at face
value and in their entirety.
iii) Where the allegations made constitute an offence, but there is no evidence which
can prove them.
5
4 Oct, 2017
6
1960 AIR 862
21
The liability of Mr. Chawla can be proved in the following factors as-
i) That there is existence of no legal bar against the institution or continuance of the
criminal proceedings.
ii) That the allegations in the FIR made against Mr. Chawla constitute a serious
offence of corruption and bribery and can be taken at the face value of it and even
can be taken entirety
iii) That there are sufficient proofs and evidences with all the amassed proportion of
the bank statements and property of Mr. Chawla which proves Mr. Chawla, the
accused guilty.
Hence, the FIR should not be quashed by the High Court.

22
______________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE 3
Whether or not the accused being exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings a valid
ground for quashing of FIR?
petition departmental inquiry is distinct from a formal criminal trial where the provisions of
Evidence Act and CrPC are strictly applicable. The technical rules of evidence are not applicable
in a departmental inquiry and the standard of proof required in departmental inquiry is
preponderance of probability whereas in a criminal trial it requires proof beyond doubt.
It is said that exoneration in departmental proceedings ipso facto would not result into quashing
of criminal prosecution against an accused.
In the case of State Of N.C.T.Of Delhi vs Ajay Kumar Tyagi 7, it was held by the Supreme
Court of India that-
“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding
ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution."
Similarly, in the case of Shyam Kishore Prasad V. The State Of Bihar8, it was noted that the
high court was hearing a petition filed by Shyam Kishore Prasad later after the State put forward
7
(2012) 9 SCC 685
8
(1996) 9 SCC 1
23
there retaliations regarding the case it was held by the high court that reiterating that absolution
in departmental proceedings would not necessarily result in discharge from criminal proceedings,
the court rejected the petition.
Co-relating this with the case of Mr. Chawla, even if he is exonerated in the disciplinary
proceeding, it will not amount to a valid ground for quashing of the FIR, as it is time and again
said and contented that a departmental inquiry is distinct from a formal criminal trial as it
strictlyinvolves the provision of Evidence Act and the CrPC, there are no technical rules of
evidence in a departmental inquiry and the standard of proof depends on the preponderance of
happenings.
It can be summarized –
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed

simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though
separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and
similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is
of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be
desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated
questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of
offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence
and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
24
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay
the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the
departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the
departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the
criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early
date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case
he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
Hence, even if Mr. Chawla is exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings, the FIR lodged
against him will not be quashed.
25
[PRAYER]
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court of Wonderland, that it may be graciously
pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The writ petition filed under article 226 and 227 of the constitution to be declared
incompetent.
2. The FIR against the accused should not be quashed
Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favor of the RESPONDENT to meet the
ends of equity, justice and good conscience.
For this act of Kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.
Place: Esselworld, Wonderland s/d
Dated: 5th March, 2018 Counsel for Respondent

R 412

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R 412

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R 412

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What are the issues in the case?

What are the issues in the case?

1

TEAM CODE: R-412

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WONDERLAND

MR. CHAWLA (PETITIONER)

UNION OF ESSELWORLD (RESPONDENT)

SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WONDERLAND

- MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT-

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

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

SUMMARY OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………XI, XII

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Criminal Procedure by R.V. Kelkar

Code of Criminal Procedue by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

The Code of Criminal Procedure by Sarkar

The Law of Evidence by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal

Commentary on Prevention of Corruption Act by A.S. Ramachandra Rao

Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu

The Constitution of India

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal (2014) 1 SCC 603

Binny Ltd & another v. Sadasivan & Ors (2005) SC

Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual & Ors (1969) SC

Mushtaq Ahmed vs. State of Karnataka (1983) 1 KLJ 276

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Sri.Govindaraju vs. State of Karnataka 2008 6 KLJ 718

Jang Bahadur Singh vs Baij Nath Tiwari 1969 AIR 30

Bhaskar Mondal v. UCO Bank and Ors. 2002(4) SLR 601

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The respondent impugns following issues for consideration:

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2. THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOT FRIVOLOUS AND

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3. THE ACCUSED BEING EXONERATED IN THE DISCIPLINARY

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India1– it was held

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

(ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or;

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2.1. THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOT FRIVOLOUS

“A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,- if he or any

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2.2 FIR AGAINST THE ACCUSED SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED