Respondent Memorial: Late Lala Deep Chand Moot Court Competition 2021

Team Code LLDC - 071
Team Code: LLDC - 071
Late Lala Dip Chand

Memorial National Moot Court Competition,
2021
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
CLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227
In The Matter of:
VEER SINGHANIA
(PETITIONER)
VS.
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.
(RESPONDENT)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH

COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

OF CLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION 1 & 2
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
MEMO OF PARTIES 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS 9
QUESTIONS OF LAW 11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): -
1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case? 12
2. Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had already faced in 13
Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy?
3. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 367, 13
368, 369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956?
1. Whether alleged transaction through bitcoins and its exchange into Indian currency is contrary 14
to law in India?
2. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention 15
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,
1999?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 18
1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case?
1.1. Whether the Central Government Sanction is needed in the present writ petition or not? 18
1.2. Whether the present Hon’ble High Court has the right to quash the F.I.R.? 19
1. Is there any legal stand of RBI Circular dated 6th April 2018? 20
Prayer 22
ABBREVIATION FULL-FORM
& And
AIR All India Reporter
2
art. Article
ed. Editor
Hon’ble Honourable
id. Ibidem
LJ Law Journal
Del Delhi
No. Number
Ors. Others
p. Page
SCC Supreme Court Cases
pt. Point
SCR Supreme Court Reports
U/S Under Section
U.A.E. United Arab Emirates
Cr. P.C. Criminal Procedure Code
Cri. Criminal
Dt. Dated
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
1. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors., (AIR 1982 SC 949)
(India)
2. Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. The State of Gujarat on 5 January 2018 (India)
3. Monica Bedi v. State of AP, (2011) 1 SCC 284 (India)
4. L.N Mukherjee v. State of Madras 1962 2 SCR 116 (India)
5. Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala And Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) And Anr. on 21
November 1962; AIR 1963 SC 1620, 1963 Supp 2 SCR 338 (India)
6. R.K. Dalmia V. Delhi Administration 1962 AIR 1821, 1963 SCR (1) 253 (India)
7. Harsh Khurana v. Union of India (UOI) And Anr., 2005 121 (2005) DLT 301 (India)
8. Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India)
9. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 in para 13 (India)
10. State of Bombay v. S.L Apte, AIR 1961 SC 578 (India)
11. S.A Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 375 (India)
12. Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, 1953 SCR 703 (India)
13. Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi, 1950 SCR 459
(India)
14. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And ... v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960, AIR 751, 1961 SCR
(2) 679 (India
15. Mohammed Haneefa Peeru Mohammed v. State Of Kerala And Another, Crl.MC No.
1055 of 2010 (India)
16. Peerless General Finance And ... vs Reserve Bank Of India, 1992, AIR 1033, 1992
SCR (1) 406 (India)
Statutes
The Constitution of India, 1950.……………………………………………………………

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.……………………………………………...
Indian Penal Code, 1860……...…………………………………………………………….
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973…………………………………………………………….
4
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 …………………………………………………...

Criminal Penal Code of UAE (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987) ……………………………….
Combat Human Trafficking, Federal Law No. 51 of 2007………………………………....
General clause Act 1897……………………………………………………………………
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947…………………………………………………...
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908……………………………………………………………..
Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019……...
Indian Evidence Act, 1872…………………………………………………………………
The Coinage Act, 2011…………………………………………………………………….
Circular
 RBI/2017-18/154. DBR.No.BP.BC.104 /08.13.102/2017-18. April 6, 2018
Books
1. Double jeopardy William Bernhardt
2. Lexis Nexis Twentieth Edition of code of Criminal Procedure
3. Taxmann Foreign exchange Management Manual
4. Professional’s the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
5. Sunil Kumar Gupta a Practical Guide to The Prevention of Money Laundering
6. Taxman’s Benami Black Money and Money Laundering Laws
7. S.N. Mishra Code of Criminal Procedure
8. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal Code of Criminal Procedure
9. R.V. Kelkar’s Code of Criminal Procedure
10. Universal’s Bare Act of I.P.C.
11. Universal’s Bare act of Cr.P.C.
12. Universal’s Bare act of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA)
13. Constitution of India by B.R. Ambedkar
Reports Referred
1. International Conventions for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the
Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, 1949 (Signed by India on May 9, 1950).
2. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW)- Convention enforced with effect from 3rd September 1981.
5
3. United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh
Guidelines), 1990, adopted by the General Assembly in December 1990, complement
the previously adopted Beijing Rules.
4. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, 1993
5. The International Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for
the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (ILO Convention 182), 1999-
Convention enforced with effect from 19th November 2000.
6. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children (Trafficking Protocol), 2001.
6
JURISDICTION
The counsel humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court under Article 226
of The Constitution of India. This Article mentions the Appellate Jurisdiction of The High
Court in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto,
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III.
Also, the inherent powers of the High Court for Quashing the F.I.R./ Chargesheet/ Complaint
and is more prevalent than 482 Cr.P.C. in interfering in the arbitrary police investigation and
also to prevent the abuse of the court process.
The Counsels for the Petitioner most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
High Court.
7
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying this
Hon’ble Court to pass necessary orders and direction, thereby not Quashing and Cancelling
the F.I.R. No. 920/2019 & F.I.R. No. 923/2019 as clubbed before this Hon’ble Court.
MEMO OF PARTIES
Veer Singhania
……Petitioner
1. Union Territory of Chandigarh

2. Union of India represented by Chief Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New
Delhi.
3. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
4. Swapna Singh W/o Bhisham Singh mother & legal guardian of Rohini Singh
5. Bhisham Singh father & legal guardian of Rohini Singh
……Respondents
8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
1. That Petitioner, Veer Singhania targeted Rohini Singh through her Tinder profile, and
only after 2 weeks of conversation Petitioner trapped Rohini and coax her to marry him
on dated 30.12.2018.
2. Petitioner with the malicious intention choose the honeymoon destination like Dubai, for
easy abduction and sexual exploitation of Rohini via Human trafficking after marriage;
and they flew for Dubai on 05.01.2019. According to the petitioner’s version during the
travel Petitioner along with his wife met Sheikh Abdul Tayyar.
3. Rohini's family were unable to contact her and fearing for the safety of their daughter
who married a suspicious man, Petitioner’s father in law, Bhisham Singh i.e. Respondent
No 5 arrived in Dubai, in search of Rohini. Petitioner narrated the filmy story of the
disappearing of Rohini on Sheikh’s Villa and also that all the present members denied the
fact of Rohini’s presence with the petitioner.
4. It is to be noted here that Petitioner has neither informed the Rohini’s Family i.e.
Respondent No. 4 & 5 about her disappearance nor he feels any emergency to file a
missing complaint of Rohini. Instead, he was residing at the same hotel, who was
lying about the fact and disappeared all the belongings of the petitioner’s wife.
5. Respondent No. 5 got worried about the Rohini and has no belief in the filmy story of the
Petitioner and that’s why he filed a complaint about the search of his daughter in the
Dubai (UAE) Police station.
6. Dubai Police arrested the petitioner and the investigation was carried out under Article
344 of the Penal Code and Article 2 of the Federal Law on combating Human
Trafficking. They contacted Chandigarh’s police and Immigration and Custom Bureau.
7. During the investigation, Dubai police came to know the fact that Rohini came along with
Veer in Dubai and also that the petitioner has the same pattern the petitioner had
dissolved his first marriage in 2017, on the ground that his wife had disappeared during
his honeymoon, 6 years ago i.e. in 2012 and at that time also investigation yielded no
results.
8. During the trial in Dubai Court petitioner stated that the Sheikh invested 7,000 Bitcoins in
the mobile payment gateway that the petitioner was building. It is to be noted here that
9
the daughter of respondent no. 4 & 5 disappeared in the House of the same person, i.e.
Sheikh Tayyar. Then also the petitioner did not return the Bitcoins as alleged.
9. Respondent no. 5 believes that the Bitcoins were the consideration after trafficking his
daughter to Sheikh Tayyar in the name of Investigation.
10. After trial (U.A.E.) Dubai Court acquitted Petitioner, and on 21st Dec 2019, petitioner
flew back to India and was arrested by the Chandigarh police at I.G.I Airport and due
effect of FIR No. 920/2019 under Cognizable Sections 363, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371
of I.P.C. and Section 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 registered by
Swapna Singh petitioner’s mother-in-law on 16th Dec 2019.
11. Petitioner was granted bail on 29th Dec 2019, on the bail bond of Rs. 28 Lakhs. During
while petitioner exchanged the 5000 Bitcoins under his possession by currency broker
Rahamat Saeed in 46,00,000/- cash.
12. On reacting over this transaction, the Chandigarh Police arrested the petitioner &
Rahamat Saeed and filed an FIR No. 923 of 2019; dated January 1, 2019; under Section 4
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Sections 3, 4, 7 and 13 of the
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
10
Questions of Law
Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.):-
1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present

case?......................
2. Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had already
faced in Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy?
3. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366,
367, 368, 369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956? ………
Ors.): -
1. Whether alleged transaction through bitcoins and its exchange into Indian currency is
contrary to law in India?
2. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999?
11
Summary of Arguments
Ors.): -
1. Issue 1: Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case?
Argument: - The competent court of India has complete jurisdiction to try the present case,
even without attracting the provisions of the 188 Cr.P.C. 1. The petitioner is an Indian Citizen
and Indian Courts extend its jurisdiction to extra-territorial offences under section 4 of Penal
Code2. There are certain stages involved in the commitment of any offence, and conspiracy
and consequences both are part of the offence so committed. In L.N Mukherjee v. the State
of Madras3, it was further held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences
committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, has also the jurisdiction to try the offence of
criminal conspiracy, even though it was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. The
court held that4 trying an accused for offence of conspiracy is competent to try the accused
for offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of the fact whether or not
overt acts have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction 5. In the landmark judgment
of Ajay Agarwal vs Union of India And Ors6, that the consequence of conspiracy and
cheating took place in India, thus a major part of the offence was committed inside the
country and there is no need for prior sanction by the Central Government. As within the
scope of Section 179 Cr.P.C.,7 it is upon the discretion of the court to start the proceedings
either based on conspiracy-based jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the overt act. The offence
of ‘Human Trafficking’ as per the UNODC definition8 also includes the term
‘Transportation’. No transportation is possible in the territory of one nation wholly. In every
transportation, the presence of two or more territories is there. India plays the role of target
country as per the UN Conventions of Combating Human Trafficking 9 and has complete
1
Code Crim. Proc. § 188
2
Pen. Code. § 4
3
L.N Mukherjee v. State of Madras, 1962 2 SCR 116 (India)
4
Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1963 SC 1620, 1963 Supp 2 SCR 338
(India)
5
R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration 1962 AIR 1821, 1963 SCR (1) 253 (India)
6
Ajay Agarwal vs Union of India And Ors 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India)
7
8
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-
trafficking.html#What_is_Human_Trafficking
9
UN Conventions of Combating Human Trafficking, (27/01/2021) https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-
trafficking/Framework_for_Action_TIP.pdf
12
jurisdiction to try the present case without attracting the need of central government sanction
under 188 Cr. P.C.10
2. Issue 2: Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had
already faced in Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy?
Argument: - Double jeopardy is not a constitutional right under Article 20(2) 11 as the
principle of Double Jeopardy in the constitution attracts only autrefois convict, not
the autrefois acquit.
If respondent no. 5, father of the Victim Rohini, failed to reach Dubai based on some doubt
he has on the petitioner and wellness of their dear daughter, then it might be possible that
petitioner would flee after committing the heinous crime of Human Trafficking. That’s why
in the heat of the moment it was very necessary to take the charge and as a responsible father,
Respondent no. 5 did correct by complaining in the nearest police station of the Dubai Hotel,
where the petitioner was staying. Moreover, despite registering a missing complaint about
Rohini, the petitioner was irresponsibly, ignorantly, and dissipatedly enjoying in the same
hotel, whose staff made disappeared the belongings of the newly wedded wife of the
petitioner.
Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay 12, Supreme Court explained the scope of the right
guaranteed under Article 20(2)13 and as to what is incorporated in it as (AIR p. 328, para 11)
“11. … within its scope the plea of ‘autrefois convict’ as known to the British jurisprudence
or the plea of double jeopardy as [it] known to the American Constitution but circumscribed
it by providing that there should be not only prosecution but also a punishment in the first
instance to operate as a bar to a second prosecution and punishment for the same offence.”
As in the present matter, the petitioner didn’t go under any conviction in the Dubai Court.
3. Issue 3: Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections
363, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956?
10
11
India Const. art. 20 cl. 2
12
Maqbool Hussain v. The State Of Bombay, 1953 AIR 325, 1953 SCR 730 (India)
13
India Const. art. 20 cl. 2
13
Argument: Yes, Petitioner has committed the alleged offence punishable u/s 363, 366, 367,
368, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code14 and also u/s 5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic Prevention
Act15. Petitioner has sold daughter of respondent no 4 and 5. Petitioner performed a sham
marriage with Rohini and coax her to come to Dubai and after coming to Dubai he sold her
to Sheikh Abdul Taiyyar in exchange for 7000 Bitcoins. Petitioner probably did the same
with his 1st wife. Petitioner’s first wife also disappeared during her honeymoon and Rohini
was his second target. That’s why the petitioner is a great threat to the Indian Society, which
is always on his target. Petitioner finds an innocent girl, traps her in his love, perform sham
marriage and sell them on their honeymoon. Petitioner is indulged in human Trafficking
abducted her to fulfil his immoral motive. There is no consent when the consent happens out
of Misconception16 as per Section 9017 of the penal code. That’s why it will not be judicial to
conclude that the Rohini went to Dubai of her own. There is Fraudulent18 Intention of the
petitioner, from the very initial stage, that’s why he met the Rohini on a Social Adult Site
like Tinder, then the petitioner hurriedly married her in just 2 weeks. Moreover, the petitioner
is highly irresponsible and his conduct of not complaining about the disappearance of his
wife, Rohini, that’s why these facts are that circumstantial evidence that shows the state of
mind of the petitioner, hence are completely relevant under section 1419 of Indian Evidence
Act. Petitioner is wrongfully concealing her and it is quite possible that a serious
investigation will reveal the facts. That’s why the quashing of F.I.R. at the very initial stage
will be a great obstacle in the way of the investigation against the petitioner, against whom
the investigating authorities have prima facie shreds of evidence.
Ors.): -
1. Issue 1: Whether alleged transaction through bitcoins and its exchange into Indian
currency is contrary to law in India?
Argument: Reserve Bank of India has imposed a ban on all the Banks and financial
institutions covered by it, from its circular dated 6 April 201820. This ban prohibits these
14
Pen. Code. § 90
15
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, The Gazette of India, Part II, sec. 3(i), vide notification No.
G.S.R. 269, dated 16th April, 1958
16
Pen. Code.
17
ibid
18
Pen. Code. § 25
19
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 14
20
RBI/2017-18/154. DBR.No.BP.BC.104 /08.13.102/2017-18. April 6, 2018
14
financial institutions from dealing or providing services of any nature, including bank
account facility, to any person or entity dealing or seeking to deal with crypto-
currencies. It has instructed all the entities regulated by it, providing such services, to exit
the relationship with 3 (three) months from 6 April 2018.21 This, effectively, takes away
the financial infrastructure required for the functioning of a cryptocurrency exchange in
India. Another concern related to the regulation and functioning of virtual currency
exchanges is the alleged facilitation of money laundering and terror funding.
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 528 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2018 22, Reserve Bank of India,
pointed out as under:
“Many cryptocurrency exchanges platform provide the facility to exchange
cryptocurrencies into fiat currency, A single transaction or an array of transactions in
cryptocurrencies over the cryptocurrency exchanges can be utilized to transfer a large
amount of funds, from one geographical location to another, in a fraction of few seconds.
These transactions would not be caught by any of the governmental authorities mainly
due to the fact that virtual currency exchanges are neither required to be registered nor are
they required to report cash transactions above a particular monetary threshold to any
governmental authorities. So, cryptocurrencies could be an instrument for money
laundering and terror funding.”23
2. Issue 2: Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 13 of the Foreign
Exchange Management Act, 1999?
Argument: Petitioner has committed the alleged offence punishable under Section 4 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 200224 (hereafter called as Act) because
Section 2(y)25 of the said provision talks about three schedules to be included in the Act.
Schedule A, part 7 considers every money earned by the medium of Immoral Trafficking
21
22
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 528 of 2018, Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 373 of 2018 (India)
23
24
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July, 2005,
vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1st July, 2005.
25
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 2(y), The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1st July, 2005.
15
as illegal and covered under The Money Laundering Act, 200226 and thereby can be
seized by the competent investigating authorities. This huge amount of 7000 Bitcoins i.e.,
approximately 68 Lakh INR as per the present matter can only be the consideration by a
stranger like Sheikh Abdul Taiyyar from whom the petitioner met during the travel
according to the filmy version story of the Petitioner. It will be not rational and digestible
to believe in the story that this stranger, even invested this huge amount as stated above in
the business of the Petitioner only after the first meeting. Though the Petitioner has a
strong doubt on the Sheikh Taiyyar in the mysterious disappearance of the Petitioner’s
Wife, then also petitioner didn’t return this huge amount to him. Because in reality the
Petitioner was indulged in Human Trafficking27 and received 7,000 Bitcoins as
consideration from Sheikh. That’s why this illegally earned money in the form of Bitcoins
to hide it from the investigating authorities; as Bitcoins can easily be used anonymously.
It is important to note here that the petitioner was retaining these Bitcoins even after the
ban of RBI via circular dated 6 April 201828 and then fraudulently exchange these
Bitcoins into Indian Currency from a currency broker Rahamat Saeed secretly. Rahamat
Saeed was not authorized in any regard to exchange a currency that has no Indian Legal
tender and he also helped the Petitioner in exchanging these Bitcoins into Indian
Currency via Cash to avoid any tracking, tax, and record. Thus, this illegal transaction
in cash to hide illegally earned money is covered under the Money Laundering Act.
29
According to Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 “If any person contravenes
any provision of this Act or contravenes any rule, regulation, notification, direction or
order issued in exercise of the powers under this Act, or contravenes any condition
subject to which an authorisation is issued by the Reserve Bank, he shall, upon
adjudication” he shall be liable for penalty and Petitioner has contravened the
30
authorisation issued by RBI., Also, “Every exporter of services shall furnish to the
Reserve Bank or to such other authorities a declaration in such form and in such manner
as may be specified, containing the true and correct material particulars in relation to a
payment for such services” Petitioner has not furnished the Reserve Bank any of the
26
ibid
27
Pen. Code. § 370
28
29
The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st July,
2005, vide notification No. GSR 436(E), dated 1 st July, 2005.
30
The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, § 7, The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, 1st June,
2000, vide notification No. G.S.R. 371(E), dated 1st May, 2000
16
declarations of providing his services to Sheikh and as per his statements he received
Bitcoins from Sheikh.
17
Arguments Advanced
Ors.): -
1. Issue 1: Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present
case?
1.1. Whether the Central Government Sanction is needed in the present writ petition
or not?
Argument: - In the landmark judgment of Ajay Agarwal vs Union of India And Ors31,
that the consequence of conspiracy and cheating took place in India, thus a major part
of the offence was committed inside the country and there is no need for prior sanction
by the Central Government.32 The major view related to the said provision is the
interpretation of the few basic terms, i.e. ‘Offence’ The Offence is the crime punishable
under Law. Whereas the Indian Penal Code has jurisdiction to include those crimes that
were, committed inside the Indian Territory, or with any Indian Citizen, or by the
Indian Citizen.3334
India is the target of the Petitioner Veer and there is no point to quash the present F.I.R.
at this stage where the investigation is going on. The system behind any Penal Code is
to punish the offender who is a threat to their society at large. Thus, in the present
scenario, affected individuals including the Indian society, its citizens i.e. respondent
no. 4 & 5 along with the victim Rohini and also the petitioner and accused Veer; all of
them belong to India. Thus, the Indian court has complete jurisdiction to try the present
case, as the harm caused by the crime is more to Indian Society than to the foreign land,
Dubai (U.A.E.).
The heinous crime of ‘Human Trafficking’ in this matter is the result of the previous
conspiracy that took place in India.
As within the scope of Section 179 Cr.P.C.,35 it is upon the discretion of the court to
start the proceedings either based on conspiracy-based jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of
the overt act. The offence of ‘Human Trafficking’ as per the UNODC definition36 also
31
Ajay Agarwal vs Union of India And Ors 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India)
32
33
Pen. Code. § 4
34
Pen. Code. § 3
35
36
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-
trafficking.html#What_is_Human_Trafficking
18
includes the term ‘Transportation’. No transportation is possible in the territory of one

nation wholly. In every transportation, the presence of two or more territories is there.
India plays the role of target country as per the UN Conventions of Combating
Human Trafficking37 and has complete jurisdiction to try the present case without
attracting the need of central government sanction under 188 Cr. P.C.38
1.2. Whether the present Hon’ble High Court has the right to quash the F.I.R.?
Argument: Police Authorities have complete right to continue the Investigation, which
is not in the ambit of the Sec. 188 Cr. P.C.39
The Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand 40, (1996) 2
SCC 37 in para 13 pointed out as under:
“When the remedy under Section 48241 is available, the High Court would be loath
and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary power under Article 22642 since efficacious
remedy under section 48243 of the code is available. When the Court exercises its
inherent power under Section 48244 the prime consideration should only be whether the
exercise of the power would advance the cause of justice or it would be an abuse of the
process of the Court. When investigating officer spends considerable time collecting the
evidence and places the charge-sheet before the Court, further action should not be
short-circuited by resorting to the exercise of inherent power to quash the charge-sheet.
Social stability and order require to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as
it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal principle should always be
kept in mind before embarking upon exercising inherent power. The accused involved in
an economic offence destabilizes the economy and causes grave incursion on the
economic planning of the State. When the Legislature entrusts the power to the police
officer to prevent the organized commission of the offence or offences involving moral
turpitude or crimes of grave nature and are entrusted with the power to investigate into
the crime in intractable terrains and secretive manner in concert, greater circumspection,
37
UN Conventions of Combating Human Trafficking, (27/01/2021) https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-
trafficking/Framework_for_Action_TIP.pdf
38
39
40
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand, (1996) 2 SCC 37 in para 13 (India)
41
42
India Const. art. 226
43
ibid
44
ibid
19
and care and caution should be borne in mind by the High Court when it exercises its
inherent power. Otherwise, the social order and security would be put in jeopardy and at
grave risk. The accused will have a field day in destabilizing the economy of the State
regulated under the relevant provisions.”45
In the landmark judgement of Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala 46, the apex
court stated that “the distinction between investigation and inquiry as defined in Sec.
2(h)47 and Sec. 2(g)48 of the Code makes the position clear. The investigation includes
all proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police
officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate on
this behalf. On the other hand, inquiry means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted
under the Code by a Magistrate or Court.”
Ors.): -
1. Advanced Issue:-Is there any legal stand of RBI Circular dated 6th April 2018?
Argument: It is important to mention that RBI Circular dated 6 April 2018 is completely
valid and the petitioner as an Indian Citizen has to abide by these regulations. Several
Apex courts statement shows and proves that, Internet and Mobile Association of India
v. Reserve Bank of India (Supra)49, para no. 98 are pointed out as under:
“On the effect and force of delegated legislation, this court held in St. Johns Teachers
Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE:69 The regulations made under a power
conferred by the statute are supporting legislation and have the force and effect, if validly
made, as an Act passed by the competent legislature..”
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, (Supra) 50, para no.
69, 70 are pointed out as under:
“ Similar views were expressed in Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India when the court
held:...a legislative Act must be read with the regulations framed. Subordinate legislation,
as is well known, when validly framed, becomes a part of the Act. 6.99. Law is well settled
that when RBI exercises the powers conferred upon it, both to frame a policy and to issue
directions for its enforcement, such directions become supplemental to the Act itself. In
45
Harsh Khurana v. Union of India (Uoi) And Anr., 2005 121 (2005) DLT 301 (India)
46
Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India)
47
Code Crim. Proc. § 2 (h)
48
Code Crim. Proc. § 2 (g)
49
50
ibid
20
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India51, this

court followed the decisions in the State of U.P. and Ors v. Babu Ram Upadhya52 and
D.K.V. Prasada Rao v. Govt. of A.P. to hold that Rules made under a statute must be
treated as if they were contained in the Act and that therefore they must be governed by
the same principles as the statute itself. Useful reference can also be made in this regard
to the following observations in ICICI Bank Ltd v. Official Liquidator of APS Star
Industries Ltd.
When a delegate is empowered by Parliament to enact a policy and to issue directions
that have a statutory force and when the delegatee (RBI) issues such guidelines (policy)
having statutory force, such guidelines have got to be read as a supplement to the
provisions of the BR Act, 1949. The banking policy is enunciated by RBI. Such policy
cannot be said to be ultra vires the Act. (emphasis supplied)”
51
Peerless General Finance And ... vs Reserve Bank Of India, 1992, AIR 1033, 1992 SCR (1) 406 (India)
52
State Of Uttar Pradesh And ... v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960, AIR 751, 1961 SCR (2) 679 (India)
21
PRAYER
Prayer for Clubbed Criminal Writ Petition (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh &
Ors.):
On the Basis of the case merits and as argued above the qua. Veer Singhania as the Petitioner
in Clubbed Criminal Writ Petition (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.) prays as
below:
1. To not interfere in the Investigation of Police Authorities at this initial stage.

2. To not Quash both the F.I.R.s i.e. 920/2019 & 923/2019, on the Prima Facie stage.
3. To direct the Petitioner to co-operate with the investigation authority.
4. Any other relief Hon'ble Court deems fit may grant accordingly in the interest of
justice.
22

Respondent Memorial: Late Lala Deep Chand Moot Court Competition 2021

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Respondent Memorial: Late Lala Deep Chand Moot Court Competition 2021

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Team Code LLDC - 071

Team Code: LLDC - 071

Late Lala Dip Chand

CLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION U/A 226/227

In The Matter of:

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

The Constitution of India, 1950.……………………………………………………………

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 …………………………………………………...

 RBI/2017-18/154. DBR.No.BP.BC.104 /08.13.102/2017-18. April 6, 2018

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

1. Union Territory of Chandigarh

Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

1. Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present

includes the term ‘Transportation’. No transportation is possible in the territory of one

Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India51, this

1. To not interfere in the Investigation of Police Authorities at this initial stage.

Potrebbero piacerti anche