Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moot Problem
Moot Problem
1)
Mala and Rahul were married in 2001 and were residing at Vijayanagar, Bangalore. However after few years, their relationship got strained and were regularly quarrelling over frivolous issues. One Day, Mala left her matrimonial house with her eldest daughter Seema and started living with her father Gopalakrishna at Jayanagar, Bangalore. Rahul kept his younger daughter, Pooja with his sister Priya and prevented Mala from seeing the child. During a noon Mala came to Priya's house and forcefully took Pooja with her. Rahul on hearing this reached Gopal Krishna's house and quarreled. After two days of the incident, Rahul and Gopalkrishna happened to meet at a market place and started to quarrel and grappled with each other. Both fell down. In the heat of passion thus generated Gopalakrishna slapped Rahul saying he would kill him. Rahul in fit of rage took a stick lying nearby and gave a blow to the stomach of Gopalakrishna. Gopalakrishna who was suffering from diseased spleen fell down instantly. Before dying Gopalkrishna gave his Dying Declaration regarding the fight and the knowledge of Rahul about the enlarged spleen. Rajajinagar police arrested Rahul and filed charge sheet. Evidence was led by prosecution in the sessions Court and during trial an eyewitness stated that it was Gopalakrishna who slapped Rahul and started the fight. Trial Court relying on Dying Declaration of Gopalakrishna convicted Rahul for commission of murder and sentenced him for life imprisonment. Rahul challenged the conviction by filing a Criminal Appeal, before the High Court of Maharashtra, relying on the deposition of the eyewitness.
(link: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/files/8_8_moot_problem_dying_declaration.pdf)
and dismissed the two Petitions file by Sumali, through the Order dated 30-11-2012. According to the Court the Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act 2000 does not violate Art 14, Art 19(1) (a) and Art 21of the Constitution. It is pointed out that that she can effectively defend the case before the trial court.However on the basis of the application filed by Sumali under Art 134A of the Constitution the leave to file appeal under 133 of the Constitution was granted by the High Court. On 10-12-2012 Sumali filed an appeal under Art 133 of the Constitution Challenging the decision of the Neethisthan High Court dated 30-11-2012.
The following CONTENTIONS are raised by Sumali. 1.Abuse of Process is involved in the matter of the arrest of Sumali and filing of FIR 2.Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act 2000 Act violates Art 14, Art 19(1) (a) and Art 21 of the Constitution.
On the behalf of the State of Neethisthan all the contentions are refuted and submitted that findings of High Court regarding the quashing of FIR could not be the subject matter of the appeal under Art 133.
MOOT PROBLEM 3) Mr. Ashok Shah, Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh were the members of governing body of a renowned Jagran Public Charitable Trust (JPCT). Mr. Ashok Shah was the Chairman of the Trust. Mr. Rajesh Singh was a trustee by virtue of his post as Executive Secretary. As per its objectives JPCT was engaged in running of various schools, hostels and hospitals. JPCT also owned vast agricultural land and commercial complexes which formed part of the income of the Trust. Since the Trust property was spread in seven different places situated in three different districts, the trustees shared the responsibility of managing various units called Station. Mr. Ashok Shah was also responsible as manager of one such Unit at Devnagar which had an English medium school, a vernacular language school, dispensary, agricultural land, residential quarters, commercial complex and a hostel for 300 students. There was regular income at this station in the form of fees of students studying in school, agricultural produce, patients availing dispensary facilities, hostel inmates and rent of workers quarters and commercial complex. The Governing body was divided into two groups - Mr. Ashok Shah, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. S. Shaikh on one side and Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse on the other side. The latter was headed by Mr. Manik Jain. Group of Mr. Manik Jain was trying hard to get into power and therefore they wanted to remove Mr. Ashok Shah as Chairman of the trust. To achieve their purpose, they incited Ms. Shruti Kapoor to make allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Ashok Shah. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Shah and group came up with a plan where they made Mr. Ashok Shah agree to write a suicide note alleging Mr. Manik Jain and group responsible for his suicide. They put up a drama of suicide thus fixing Mr. Manik Jain and group on charges of abetment to commit suicide. The Trust held an agricultural land near an upcoming Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and therefore the land got attention of many builders. Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and 2 Mr. Sandeep Borse wanted to sell the Trust land at the prevailing market price but Mr. Ashok Shah objected to the same and as a result the sale did not materialize. Thirty people viz. workers and residents of Devnagar Station reported to the Executive Secretary Mr. Rajesh Singh on 10th October 2011 that Mr. Ashok Shah as a manager of the station was engaged in embezzlement of funds. They pointed out that he had taken illegal gratification from the parents to get their children admitted in schools and hostels. He had sold away chunk of agricultural produce and had not submitted the amount to Trusts fund. Similarly, they pointed out that Mr. Ashok Shah had regularly collected house rent and rent from the tenants of commercial complex and had not remitted the amount to Trusts treasury. This News was flashed widely in local media. After receiving the written complaint, the Executive Secretary brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman Mr. Ashok Shah and informed him that since he is having a written complaint against him, he will have to bring the matter in front of Governing body to be held on 12th November 2011. He further requested Mr. Ashok Shah to clear the matter before the meeting so that his image was not tarnished. All Members of Governing Body unanimously supported Mr. Ashok Shah and issued a letter to Mr. Rajesh Singh condemning the allegations and supporting Mr. Ashok Shah. On 5th November 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah wrote a letter and kept the same in his office drawer. The letter contained the statement that in case of his death, Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep Borse should be held responsible for his death. According to the letter, they had been the mastermind behind the complaint and done with sole intention to defame him. Early morning on 12th November 2011, Mr. Ashok Shah was found hanging from the roof in the rear room of his house with its main door not latched. On the basis of preliminary investigation, police prima facie assumed that he had committed suicide. Based on the note found in his office drawer police filed a charge sheet against Mr. Manik Jain, Mr. Sandeep Borse, Ms. Shruti Kapoor. They were alleged to havecommitted an offence u/s. 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The Trial Court convicted Mr. Manik Jain, Ms. Shruti Kapoor and Mr. Sandeep Borse. Being aggrieved by the conviction, they preferred an appeal to the High Court of Gujarat.