LL.B (3 YDC, VI Semester) PAPER
V
–
Moot Courts
(Criminal Case)
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
1
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
Padala Rama Reddi Law College
MOOT COURT PROBLEM – 2
CRIMINAL CASE
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Moot Court exercise & problems as part of law course
Typology: Assignments
2020/2021
1 / 12
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Often downloaded together
Partial preview of the text
Download Moot Court Exercise No. 2 (Criminal Case) and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
MOOT COURT PROBLEM – 2
CRIMINAL CASE
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
PADALA RAMA REDDI LAW COLLEGE
MOOT COURT CASES – 2020-
LL.B. 3/3YDC
CASE 2 - CRIMINAL
Mr. Raman and Mr. Sravan are employees of same company working in administrative section. Since both of them are of same age and also working together, they became very close. Mr. Sravan is very conservative in his money spending and saved his money in a traditional way, While Mr. Raman is a stock market player and he always wanted to make a quick buck out of speculation. Mr. Sravan used to warn Mr. Raman and say that playing with stock markets as a speculator is very risky and if things do not turn in our favour, there is always a danger of unrecoverable huge loss. Mr. Raman did not take his words very seriously and because of luck in his favour, he made a huge profit in share transactions. Over a period of time, Mr. Raman even started to deal with Future and Options in derivative market and in the process he started borrowing money from Mr. Sravan but used to promptly return the amounts. One day Mr. Raman went to Mr. Sravan and requested him to lend Rupees Five Lakhs which he will be returning it back in a week time. Mr. Sravan organised money to his friend.
Even after a month time, Mr. Raman did not return the money back and Mr. Sravan asked him to pay the money back as he needs it to meet his own personal needs. Mr. Raman asked him a week time to return back the amount to which Mr. Sravan agreed reluctantly. Ten days passed and there was no response from Mr. Raman. On the eleventh day after the Office Hours in the evening, Mr. Sravan met him and insisted immediate repayment of money for which Mr. Raman gave a Cheque and asked Mr. Sravan to deposit after a week time. Mr. Sravan followed his instructions and deposited the cheque after a week time in Union Bank, where he is maintaining account. The cheque has returned dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Immediately Mr. Sravan called up Mr. Raman and intimated him the same. Mr. Raman requested Mr. Sravan to represent it the next day and Mr. Sravan did the same but again the cheque got bounced due to lack of funds. Mr. Sravan has approached you for relief, suggest appropriate solution and guide him in legal proceedings.
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
- Inspite of re-presenting the cheque the bank has returned the cheque dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and bank has issued cheque return memo.
- That the above facts may be abundantly clear that you have mischievously and intentionally issued the above said cheque with ulterior motive and malafide intention as that the time of issuing the aforesaid cheque, you are fully aware of the fact that the same would be dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in your account.
- While that on account of above acts, you are liable to be prosecuted u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 under which you are liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years or with a fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or both.
- Under these circumstances, I hereby call upon you to make the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) to my client within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, as instructed by my client, necessary legal action will be taken against you and you shall be liable for all costs and consequences resulting there from.
You are also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) towards charges for this legal notice.
Kindly take notice.
Sd/- A. Mallikarjun (Advocate)
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT AT NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD
CC. No. 138 of 2021
BETWEEN:- Mr. Sravan, S/o. Karan, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... Complainant
AND
Mr. Raman S/o. Suman, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... Accused
PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881 R/W SECTION 190 & 200 CRPC
- Date of the offence : 24/01/
- Place of the offence : Union Bank of India, Somajiguda Branch, Hyderabad.
- Nature of offence : U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
- Date of dishonoured cheque : Cheque No: 123456, dated. 19-01-
- Date of dishonour of cheque : I dishonour dated. 21/01/ II dishonour dated. 24/01/
- Date of statutory notice : 10-02-
- Date of service of notice : 12-02-
- Police station limits : Panjagutta, Police Station
- List of witnesses : 1. Complainant
- Bank Manager, Union Bank of India
Brief facts of the case: The above named complainant humbly submits as follows:
- The address for service of summons, notices and processes etc., in respect of the above name complainant is the same as that of his counsel Mr. Mallikarjun, Nampally Criminal Court premises, Hyderabad.
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
- It is submitted that, the failure on part of the accused in replying to the legal notice and in paying the amount in question, constitute to an offence making the accused liable to punishment in accordance with section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that the complaint can be taken on the file of this Hon’ble Court.
Cause of action: The cause of action arose after the expiry of 15 days from the date of accused received the demand notice i.e., on 28-02-2021. Hence, the complaint is filed within the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Prayer: The complainant humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleaded
- To take the cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of N.I. Act, 1881.
- To summon the accused and punish him in accordance with law.
- To award compensation u/s 357(3) of Cr.P.C. of the complaint.
Place: Hyderabad Date: 20-03-
Sd/- Complainant
Sd/- (Councel for Complainant)
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
VERIFICATION
I, Mr. Sravan, hereby declare that facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and having understood the above contents and signed.
Place: Hyderabad Date: 20-03- Sd/ - Complainant
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Sl. No. Description Annexure
- Xerox copy of Savings Bank Account statements. Ann. I
- Xerox copy of ‘Legal Notice’ sent to the accused. Ann. II
- Xerox copy the Postal Acknowledgement of Registered Post sent to the accused.
Ann. III
- Xerox copy of Cheque Return Memo. Ann. IV
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
* SWORN AFFIDAVIT BY THE COMPLAINANT:
IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT AT NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD
CC. No. 138 of 2021
BETWEEN: – Mr. Sravan, S/o. Karan, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... Complainant
AND
Mr. Raman S/o. Suman, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... Accused
SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMPLAINANT
I Shravan, S/o. Karan, Age: 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Somajiguda, Hyderabad, do hereby state on oath as follows:
- It is submitted that, I, by virtue of well acquaintance with the accused person and both of us being the employees of the same company, have lent Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) to the accused person on 01-12-2020 upon the assurance given by the accused to return the amount within a week time.
- It is submitted that, even after a month’s time, the accused did not returned the money and instead asked me a week time to return the amount for which I have agreed.
- It is submitted that, even after passing of 10 days there was no response from the accused person. I met the accused person on the next day i.e., 12-01-2021 and insisted immediate payment of money for which, the accused person has issued a cheque, bearing cheque no. 123456, dated. 19-01-2021, for
Raghunadh Sir Dictated notes
A. Mallikarjun (1726-18-831-094)
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs), drawn on bank SBI Bank, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad and asked me to deposit the same after a week.
- It is submitted that, I have presented the aforesaid cheque in my account at Union Bank of India, Somajiguda Branch on 19-01-2021, but the same was dishonoured on 21-01-2021 due to insufficiency of the funds.
- It is submitted that, I have informed the same to the accused and he asked me to re-present the cheque which was returned dishonoured again due to insufficiency of funds.
- It is submitted that, a registered notice is given it is served on date. 12-02-2021.
- It is respectfully submitted that, the accused herein issued the above mentioned dishonour cheque with a dishonest and malafide intention to have a wrongful gain for him and to have a wrongful loss to the complainant and the acts are the part of the accused herein constitutes an offences u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Therefore, I pray that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take me on file, summon and punish the accused by awarding the maximum sentence permissible under the law and alleviate the grievance of me by awarding maximum compensation permissible under the law in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and pass such order or further orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Place: Hyderabad Date: 20-03- Sd/- Deponent Sworn and signed on this day of 20-03-2021.
Before me,
Sd/- Advocate