496216950 Petitioner Memorial Late Lala Deep Chand Moot Court Competition 2021 PDF

Preview

Summary

Late Lala Dip Chand Memorial National MootCourt Competition, 2021IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANACLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION U/A 226/In The Matter of:VEER SINGHANIA(PETITIONER)VS.UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.(RESPONDENT)UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HIG...

Description

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 PETITIONER OF CLUBBED Cr. WRIT PETITION 1 & 2

Team Code LLDC - 071

TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

6

MEMO OF PARTIES

7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8

QUESTIONS OF LAW

10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

11

Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): -

11

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

11

2. Whether trial of Veer by the Court in India, for the same charges that he had already faced in 12 Dubai, as that would amount to Double Jeopardy? 3. Whether Veer has committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 367, 368, 13 369, 370, 371 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5, 8 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956? Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): -

14

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

17

Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.):

17

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

17

1.1. Whether the Central Government Sanction is needed in the present writ petition or not?

17

1.2. Whether the present Hon’ble High Court has the right to quash the F.I.R.?

17

Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.):

18

1. Are the P2P transactions, i.e. Peer to Peer transactions covered under the RBI Regulations?

18

2. Can Virtual Currency be considered as currency under the Money Laundering Act?

19 21

Prayer

2

Team Code LLDC - 071

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATION

FULL-FORM

&

And

AIR

All India Reporter

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

Cr.

Criminal

3

Team Code LLDC - 071

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES 1. Monica Bedi v. State of AP, (2011) 1 SCC 284 (India) 2. Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India) 3. Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India And Ors 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India) 4. 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) 5. Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State Of West Bengal, 1962 2 SCR 101 (India) 6. Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Principal Secretary And Another, (2011)9 SCC 527 (India) 7. Subramanium Sethuraman v. the State of Maharashtra, (2005 SCC (Crl) 242 8. Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, 2004 7 SCC 338 (India) 9. Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd Edn., Vol. 9 (India) 10. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 at p. 422 (India) 11. K Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 266 (India) 12. Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh (AIR 1962 SC 63) (India) 13. Remla And Another v. S.P Of Police And Others, 1992, 1993 (1) KLT 412) (India) 14. State of U.P v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 (India) 15. State of Kerala v. K. Sankaran Nair (1993 (1) KLJ 956) (India) 16. Hari Singh v. State Of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114 (India) 17. Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhthija v. Collector, Thane (AIR 1991 SC 1893) (India) 18. Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur (1990 Supp SCC 157: AIR 1990 SC 307) (India)

Statutes The Constitution of India, 1950.…………………………………………………………… Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.……………………………………………... Indian Penal Code, 1860……...……………………………………………………………. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973……………………………………………………………. 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…………………………………………………………………… 4

Team Code LLDC - 071

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……………………………………………………………………. Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates, 2000……………………………………………………………………………. Reports Referred 1. Inter-Ministerial Committee, Union of India Report on Cryptocurrency dated 28.02.2019. 2. 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). 3. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)- Convention enforced with effect from 3rd September 1981. 4. The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, 1993 5. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Trafficking Protocol), 2001. 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. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal Code of Criminal Procedure 8. R.V. Kelkar’s Code of Criminal Procedure 9. Universal’s Bare Act of I.P.C. 10. Universal’s Bare act of Cr.P.C. 11. Universal’s Bare act of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) 12. Constitution of India by B.R. Ambedkar 5

Team Code LLDC - 071

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 baseless F.I.R./ Chargesheet/ Complaint. This 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. Also, Petitioner is a citizen of India.

The Counsels for the Petitioner most respectfully submit to this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court.

6

Team Code LLDC - 071

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 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

7

Team Code LLDC - 071

STATEMENT OF FACTS Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: 1. That Petitioner, Veer Singhania fell in love and got married to Rohini Singh on dated 31.12.2018 without the consent of Rohini’s parents. 2. On 05.01.2019, the petitioner left for his honeymoon to Dubai. Also, the airline offered the honeymoon package to the newly wedded couple. During the travel, Petitioner met Sheikh Abdul Tayyar, who was on his way to Dubai from Italy. 3. The petitioner along with his wife reached Abdul Tayyar’s residence. Sheikh invested 7,000 Bitcoins in the mobile payment gateway that the petitioner was building. While petitioner’s wife Rohini joined the three wives of Sheikh Tayyar. 4. On departure, petitioner called up for his wife, but it’s a matter of utmost surprise that all the present members around the petitioner including Sheikh Tayyar, his three wives, hotel staff, and driver who dropped them at the Tayyar’s residence denied the fact that Petitioner came here with his wife or any other women. They all stated that the petitioner came alone not only at the Tayyar’s residence but also in Dubai’s hotel. 5. The petitioner feels so dejected, confused & afraid because he was neither able to find his newly wedded wife, Rohini; nor her belongings (clothes, camera, passport, and other things) at the hotel. Even the hotel staff stated that he has booked the business suite not the honeymoon suite at their hotel. 6. Petitioner’s father-in-law, Bhisham Singh Respondent No.5 who is a Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh arrived in Dubai, directly at the hotel in search of Rohini. It is to be noted here that, this marriage is without the consent of Rohini’s parents; then it is really surprising that the petitioner’s in-laws know about their hotel of stay in Dubai. 7. Petitioner explained and narrated the whole story of Sheikh Tayyar’s residence to his father in law but as this marriage is without his consent, that’s why he filed a false complaint against Petitioner in Dubai (UAE) Police station. 8. Dubai’s police charged Petitioner under Article 344 of Penal Code and Article 2 of Federal Law on Combating Human Trafficking and investigated the matter from Chandigarh’s police and Immigration and Custom Bureau. After trial (UAE) Dubai Court acquitted Petitioner and directed police to investigate Sheikh Abdul’s activities. 9. On 21st Dec 2019, petitioner after complete acquittal from all charges flew back to his nation India and was arrested by the Chandigarh police at I.G.I Airport and was taken for 8

Team Code LLDC - 071

questioning based on false FIR No. 920/2019 under 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 Respondent No.4, petitioner’s mother-in-law on 16th Dec 2019 i.e. after the acquittal of petitioner from Dubai’s Court. 10. Petitioner was granted bail on 29th Dec 2019, on the bail bond of Rs 28 Lakh, to payout his legal defences and other needs, petitioner exchanged the 5000 Bitcoins under his possession by currency broker Rahamat Saeed in 46,00,000/- cash. 11. 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.

9

Team Code LLDC - 071

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? Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-2 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & 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?

10

Team Code LLDC - 071

Summary of Arguments Issues raised out of Criminal Writ Petition-1 (Veer Singhania v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors.): Issue 1: Whether a competent Court in India has jurisdiction to try the present case? Argument: - Yes, a competent court in India has jurisdiction to try the case in F.I.R. No.: 920/2019 as the petitioner is a citizen of India and believes in the law of land. But no such offence that is committed outside India, shall be inquired into or tried by any competent court in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government i.e. Respondent No. 2, as per Section 188 of Cr. P.C1. In the present case, the respondents have no prior sanction from the central government, not even till the present. As the alleged offence of Human Trafficking is committed outside the Indian territory as per the respondent’s version. That’s why the competent authorities can only do the investigation, but no inquiry or trial against the petitioner2. In Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India) the apex court said that “The proviso to Sec. 188 of the Code3 is mandatory and the absence of sanction is an absolute bar to the inquiry or trial of a case to which the provisions contained in that section apply.” Direct arresting the petitioner, based on bogus F.I.R. by respondent no. 4, without any additional evidence in a violation of this. In the landmark judgment of Ajay Agarwal vs Union of India And Ors4, that the consequence of conspiracy and cheating took place in India, thus the offence was not committed outside the country. In the present matter, the term ‘act’ i.e. Actus Reus is committed outside the territory of India. Even none of the responding parties tried for the Extradition proceedings, as respondent no. 5 itself started the proceedings in the foreign territory and respondent no. 5 failed in his mala-fide intentions then the wife of respondent no. 5 i.e. respondent no. 4, started the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in India. Also, the mistake of law5 is not valid as per many supreme court judgements6, we have to read law as per legislation.7

1

Code Crim. Proc. § 188 Mohammed Sajeed K. v. State of Kerala, 1995 Cri.L.J.3313 (India) 3 Code Crim. Proc. § 188 4 Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India And Ors, 1993 AIR 1637, 1993 SCR (3) 543 (India) 5 Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur (1990 Supp SCC 157: AIR 1990 SC 307) (India) 6 Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhthija v. Collector, Thane (AIR 1991 SC 1893) (India) 7 Hari Singh v. State Of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 114 (India)

2

11

Team Code LLDC - 071

1. 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 a principle of natural justice. Petitioner has both constitutional right under Article 20(2)8 and statutory right under section 300 of Cr.P.C.9, where the code states about both the autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. Also, the Apex court extends the right against Double Jeopardy to the foreign courts as well10. The meaning of ‘Double Jeopardy’ as per the American Heritage Dictionary11 as, “The act of putting a person through a second trial of an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted ‘or’ convicted.” Moreover, the State of Mind of the Respondent no. 5 is suspicious, it is important to mention here that Respondent no. 5 is an influential government servant, serving as Central Excise, Chandigarh, not a layman, who haven’t tried for Proceedings of Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates 12. These acts and conduct by respondent no. 5 clearly show that respondent no. 5 in corroboration with respondent no. 4, have complete faith in the judicial system of Dubai (U.A.E.), as respondent no. 5 itself registered the Police complaint against the petitioner in the Dubai police station; he has complete freedom to initiate the proceedings in his choice of jurisdiction. These all evidence clearly show the state of mind of the respondent no. 4 & 5, and these are relevant evidence as per Section 14 Indian Evidence Act13. No cause of action arises after the acquittal of the petitioner from the Dubai (U.A.E.) court in India, moreover in the present case the F.I.R. No. 920/2019 has been registered after the acquittal of the petitioner and even after about a year of the incident, which shows the ill intentions of respondent no. 4 i.e. Mother-in-law of the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 is itself involved in the proceedings of the Dubai Court, and they even conjointly took part in the ‘inquiry’ along with the Dubai Police. Even on a diplomatic front, without having any additional evidence, it will against the principles of natural justice to try the present case again in India after acquittal in Dubai. As 8

India Const. art. 20 cl. 2 Code Crim. Proc. § 300 10 Monica Bedi v. State of AP, (2011) 1 SCC 284 (India) 11 Amrhttps://ahdictionary.com/ 12 Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the United Arab Emirates, 2000, Article 5, Published vide Notification No. G.S.R. 653(E), dated 20th July, 2000, Act 2480 13 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 14 9

12

Team Code LLDC - 071

per the 6 test points mentioned in 13 C.P.C.14, it is crystal clear on a prima facie basis that the parties to the present case are also involved in the judicial proceedings of Dubai (U.A.E.) Court and they failed to present any evidence against the petitioner in any of the cases. 2. 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? Argument: Petitioner has not committed any of the alleged offence, because the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Dubai (U.A.E.)’s court after being tried under the same offences, i.e. Article 344, Penal Code of U.A.E.15 and also under Federal Law i.e. Combat Human Trafficking16, punishable under the penal code of a Reciprocating Authority. Section 366, of the Indian Penal Code,17 is ‘Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc’, whereas in the present matter the petitioner and Rohini is the legally wedded husband and wife. There is no reason to compel Rohini, who is already a legally wedded wife of the petitioner to undergo kidnapping and abduction. In Section 36718, under which there is kidnapping for ‘Slavery’. This section is self-cont...