N.B.T.

LAW COLLEGE
MOOT COURT CASE 2
ACADEMIC YEAR 2019 – 2020

STUDENT ADVOCATE
Chhaya Bhaskar Nisal
Roll No- 77
LLB-III DIV- A
FOR : APPELANTS

Presented Before
Prof. Bhalerav sir
 IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2020
(Arising Out of S.L.P.(Crl ) No .4592 Of 2017)

PREM CHAND SINGH ….APPELANTS

Versus

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT

IN THE MATTER OF
PETITTION FOR APPEAL AGAINST JUDGEMENTS AND ORDER PASSED BY 4th
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GONDA (U.P.)
 INDEX

1 Cover Page 1

2 List of Abbreviations 3

3 Status & Books Reffered 4

4 Provisions & Sections 5

5 Vakalatnama 6

6 Statement of Jurisdiction 7

7 Statement of Fact 8

8 Issues 9

9 Statement of Arguments 10

10 Prayer 13

11 Affidavit 14

12 Verification 15
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

Govt. Government

AIR All India Reporter

Hon'ble Honourable

SLP Special Leave Petition

 STATUS AND BOOKS REFFERRED

1. Criminal Procedure Code , 1973

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Constitution of India
4. Supreme Court Reference

WEBSITES REFFERRED
1. www.google.com
2. www.Indiakanoon.com
3. www.lawyerclubindia.com
4. www.bar&bench.com
5. www.legallaid.com
6. www.livelaw.com
7. www.lawctopus.com

CASES REFFERED
1. Inder Mohan Goswami & Another VS State Of Uttaranchal & Ors
2. Sheila Sebastion v/s R.Javaharaj
3. M/S Pan Resorts Limited vs H. H. Marthanda Varma
4. Lalita Kumari vs Govt of Uttar Pradesh
 PROVISIONS AND SECTIONS

 Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Magistrate to direct the end police to conduct investigation was only in
respect of a cognizable offense. It is incumbents for the police to register an
FIR if the complaint relates to the commission of a cognizable offense .
 Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offense . while
the acquittal remains in force, be charged with theft as a servant, or upon
the same facts with theft simply , or with criminal breach of trust .
 Section 419 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Punishment for cheating by personation – whoever cheats by personation
shall be punished.
 Section 420 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Warrant with whom to be lodged – When the prisoner is to be confined in a
jail , the warrant shall be lodged with the Jailor.
 Section 419 of Indian Penal Code 1860
Punishment for cheating by personation
 Section 420 of Indian Penal Code 1860
Cheating and dishonesty including delivery of property
 Section 467 Indian Penal Code 1860
Forgery of valuable will
 Section 468 of Indian Penal Code 1860
Forgery for purpose of cheating –punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term
 Section 471 of Indian Penal Code 1860
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or
electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged
document or electronic record , shall be punished in the same manner as if
he had forged such document or electronic record .
Opposed to public policy.
 VAKALATNAMA
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2020
(Arising Out of S.L.P.(Crl) No .4592 Of 2017)

PREM CHAND SINGH ….APPELANTS

Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT

Me the Appellant do hereby appoint a student Adv. Chhaya Bhaskar Nisal on record
of hon’ble supreme court of India to appear for me in the above writ petition to
conduct the proceeding on my behalf that may be taken in respect of any
application connected there with in any decree or judgment or any order passed
there in including the proceeding for review to be filled or to obtain return receive
document and to try deposit and receive money on my behalf in the said petition
we ready to rectify all the acts done by the aforesaid student advocate in the
presence of this authority and signs hereunder.

ACCEPTED ON: / /2020

PLACE – NEW DELHI

Sd/-
____________________________
APPELLANTS (PREM CHAND SINGH)

Sd/-
__________________
CHHAYA B. NISAL
(STUDENT ADVOCATE)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeal from

high court is regard to criminal matter.

1) An appeal shall lie to the supreme court from any judgment

decree of Final order in a criminal proceeding of a High court in
the territory of India if the High court has on appeal reversed an
order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
death; or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any
court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted
the accused person and sentenced him to death ; or certifies
under Article 134 A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the
supreme court .

2) Provided that an appeal under sub-clause shall lie subject to

such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause (1)
of Article 145 to such conditions as the High Court may establish
or require.

3) Parliament may by law confer on the supreme court any further

power to entertain and hear appeals from any Judgment, final
order or sentences in a criminal proceeding of a High court in
the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations
as may be specified in such law.
 STATEMENT OF FACT
1) In this case the respondents has given a general power of attorney to the
Appellant on 02.05.1985. On the basis to sold certain lands belonging the
Respondent.
2) One of the respondent Lodged FIR No.160 of 1989 on 14.09.1989 that never
executed any general power of attorney in favoure of the Appellant.
Appellant forged general power of attorney to sell his land illegally.
3) The Trial court acquitted the appellant as the charge could not be
established. On the basis that no records are not available.
4) The respondent then filed civil suit No.353 of 2007 to cancel the general
power of attorney. The Respondent filed an application u/s 156(3) criminal
procedure code.
5) This application was forwarded by the court to police leading to registration
.Alleging that the appellant had forged general power of attorney and sold
lands of respondent, still earlier also sold.
6) As per the responses of civil suit No.353 of 2007. The appellant filed an
application for discharge. For referring to his acquittal, stating that he could
not be tried for same offence twice.
7) Revision against the same was dismissed on behalf of appellant can more
appropriately be urged at the time of framing the charge.
8) Submitted that the order of acquittal and the cancellation of general power
of is not in dispute.
9) First and second FIR are refers for the general power of attorney
comparatively executed offer long year. Therefore, it is a complete abuse of
the process of law and the proceeding are fit to be quashed.
10) Appeal in the High court has declined interference. On the basis that
ingredients of the two FIR were different.
11) The High court discharge application was rightly rejected and
interference declined in revision.
12) Supreme court Justify that, the Judgment may not have been made
available is therefore inconsequential and respondent demanding the
cancellation of the general power of attorney after acquittal of the
appellant.
13) The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.03.2017 are
set aside.
 ISSUES

1) Whether the power of attorney executed by the respondent or

not?

2) Whether the person once convicted or acquitted not be tried for

same offence?

3) Whether the power of attorney is legal or forged?

4) Whether the civil court have power to entertain the application

filed for lodging FIR?
 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

I request sincerely that following should be kindly taken care of my

contention that can be argued in the present case is that appellant
denied all the adverse allegation levied by the respondent against him.

ISSUE NO 1
1)Whether the power of attorney executed by the respondent or not?
On behalf of the appellant side I am student advocate Chhaya B. Nisal
respectfully submits:-
Your honor the general power of attorney is executed by the
respondent. It is mentioned that the general power of attorney dated
02.05.1985 executed by respondent no. 2. The respondent has executed
the power of attorney in front of two witnesses which are Sushil Kumar
and Arvind . These are the two witnesses are mentioned in the
pursuance.
This power of attorney is signed by the respondent and sign not
denied by the respondent. Hence it is presume that the power of
attorney is executed by the respondent.
CASE LAW
INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI & ANOTHER VS STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ORS
Supreme court of India on 9th October 2007
President Mohan lal sharma executed a general power of attorney on 13.12.1996
in favour of respondent. Bighas was transferred by executing a general power of
attorney dated 13.12.1996 in favor of respondent.
In this case general power of attorney executed by Late Mohanlal Sharma
president of the sabha had ceased to be in effect after his death. So the power of
attorney is given to the respondent in the name of his son Sureh Ahuja. The
respondent earnest money had been forfeited. All of this was only done after
appellants had given respondent due notice.
ISSUE NO 2
2. Whether the person once convicted or acquitted not be tried for
same offence?
On behalf of the appellant side I am student advocate Chhaya B. Nisal
respectfully submits:-

When person once convicted or acquitted not be tried for same offence.
As per the section 300 of the cr.p.c. provided that, person who has once
been tried by a court of competent Jurisdiction for an offence and
convicted or acquitted of such offence shall while such conviction or
acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same
offence, nor on the same fact for any other offence for which a different
charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub
–section (1) of section 221 or for which he might have been convicted
under sub-section (2) thereof.

CASE LAW

SHEILA SEBASTION V/S R.JAWAHARAJ

Supreme Court of India on 11th May 2018

In this case the complainant alleges that accused was convicted under
section 465 IPC and was the offence of forgery making of a false
document is essential. On the alleged forged power of attorney do not
match with that document.

Supreme Court was held that we find no reason to interfere with the
order passed by the High Court. Appeals stand dismissed being devoid
of merits. As mentioned in this case the person once convicted cannot
be tried for same offence.
ISSUE NO 3
2. Whether the power of attorney is legal or forged?
On behalf of the appellant side I am student advocate Chhaya B. Nisal
respectfully submits:-
Your honor the general power of attorney whether legal or forged it is
disputed. The appellant is filed in the application in front of JMFC but
JMFC rejected the application. JMFC also have no right to determine the
legality of the general power of attorney. The suit is file in the civil court
by the respondent but civil court has not given judgment still. Though
civil court have the right to decide the legality. But still the suit is pending
in front of civil court.
CASE LAW
M/S Pan Resorts Limited vs H. H. Marthanda Varma
Madras High Court on 30th October 2014
In this case petitioner using the said fraudulent and forged power of attorney
and colluding with the respondent. There is no confirmation about the
General Power of attorney. Whether it is legal or forged. Suit is filed in the
civil court by the respondent but civil court has not given judgment.
At the time of pronouncing the judgment the it was informed by the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent passed away and if that being so
any observation finding given against him in this order will hold good for
other contemnors.
ISSUE NO 4

1)Whether the civil court have power to entertain the application filed
for lodging FIR ?

On behalf of the appellant side I am student advocate Chhaya B. Nisal

respectfully submits:-
Your honor as per the civil court have no power to entertain the
application filed for lodging FIR. A FIR is the very first step in the criminal
matter in which the facts of the commission of crimes is reported to the
police by the person who is a witness to the case, victim or a person who
has knowledge of the same act done by the accused. Under normal
circumstances FIR cannot be registered about any civil dispute because
section 154 of criminal procedure code. Under which the FIR is
registered clearly say that police are bound to register a complaint about
a cognizable offence.
CASE LAW
Lalita Kumari vs Govt of Uttar Pradesh
2014 2 SCC 1
In this case it is mentioned that in a civil matter a contempt petition can
be filed before the High court against the officer who refused to lodge
an FIR Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Court was held that the police must registered FIR where the complaint
dis closes a cognizable offence.
 PRAYER

In the premises ,the appellant humbly prays that light of the issues raised
, arguments advanced and authorities cited ,the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that it may graciously pleased to hold, adjudge and advance –
1)To entitle the appellants to quash the FIR as per the suitable
adjugesment.
2)To entitle the appellants as per the matter should be acquitted to the
appellant from the respondent.
3)Any other order, declaration of relief that may be deemed fit in the
best interest of justice, fairness ,equity, and good conscience;
As for the acts, the appellants shall forever be obliged.

Accepted On- / /2020

Place – New Delhi

Sd/-
____________________________
APPELLANTS (PREM CHAND SINGH)

Sd/-
__________________
CHHAYA B. NISAL
(STUDENT ADVOCATE)
 AFFIDAVIT
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2020
(Arising Out of S.L.P.(Crl ) No .4592 Of 2017)

PREM CHAND SINGH ….APPELANTS

Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT

We , Prem Chand Singh and Others , the appellants of solemn

affirmation state to the best of our knowledge , belief and information
in witness therefore that the contents of this appeal are true to the best
of my knowledge and hence we sign hereunder
Accepted On - / /2020
Place – New Delhi

Sd/-
____________________________
APPELLANTS (PREM CHAND SINGH)

Sd/-
__________________
CHHAYA B. NISAL
(STUDENT ADVOCATE)
 VERIFICATION

I , Counsel on behalf of Prem Chand Singh ( Appellants ) , do hereby

state on solemn affirmation that above contents are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief and hence l sign hereunder

Accepted On – / /2020
Place – New Delhi

Sd/-
____________________________
APPELLANTS (PREM CHAND SINGH)

Sd/-
__________________
CHHAYA B. NISAL
(STUDENT ADVOCATE)