Christ Defence Surana 2017

SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY WEST ROUNDS – 2017 Page no.
TEAM CODE:
IN THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA
C.C. NO. 101 of 2017
In the matter of
STATE OF RABAT
versus
KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS
FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTIONS 170, 171B r/w 171E,

171F, 120B r/w 34 OF THE RABAT PENAL CODE, 1860; SECTION 8 OF
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; SECTION 123(1) OF
THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951.
ON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY WEST ROUNDS – 2017 Page no. 2
THE TABLE OF CONTENTS
 THE TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………….Page No. 2
 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………............................Page No. 3
 THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………...............................Page No. 7
 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………….............................Page No. 8
 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………...Page No. 10
 THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES……………………….............................Page No. 11
 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………..Page No. 12
 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………….Page No. 13
1. THE ACCUSED A1, A2, A3 AND A4 ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 120B
r/w 34 OF R.P.C………………………………………………………………Page No. 13
2. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171B r/w 171E
OF R.P.C AND UNDER SECTION 123(1) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE
ACT, 1951……………………………………………………………………Page No. 18
3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 ………………………..…Page No. 22
4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171F OF THE RABAT

PENAL CODE………………………………………………………………Page No. 24
5. THE ACCUSED A2 IS NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT

PENAL CODE………………………………………………………………Page No. 26
 THE PRAYER……………………………………………...............................Page No. 29
 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES……..................................Page No. 30
 THE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND ANNEXURES...................................Page No. 36

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASES:
1. Amir Chand Tota Ram v. Suvhitra kriplani, A.I.R. 1961 Punj 383, p 386
2. Amrik Singh v State of Punjab, (1972) 4 S.C.C. 42
3. Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 564
4. Baliya @ Bal Kishan v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 S.C.C. 696.
5. Bhabha Nanda Sarma v State of Assam, A.I.R. 1977 SC 2252, (1977) 4 S.C.C. 396
6. Bhopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1968 Cri.L.J. 1572.
7. Chandrakantha Goyal v Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 378
8. Dhanwantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharastra, A.I.R. 1964 SC 575; 1963 (1) SC
WR 178; 1964 1 Cr LJ 437
9. Girija Shankar Misra v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1993 SC 2618: (1994) Supp 1 S.C.C.
26: (1994) S.C.C. (Cr) 214
10. Hari Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 8 S.C.C. 146
11. Harishchandra v. State of Unknown, (2010) 46 O.C.R. 662 (Ori).
12. Howkins v. Sowells Tillary Steam Coal Company Ltd.,1911 (1) WB 988);
13. Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1944 Cal. 339.
14. Jeet Mohinder Singh v Harminder Singh Jassi, A.I.R. 2000 SC 256: 1999 8 S.C.C. 386
15. Jethsur Surangbha v State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1984 SC 151: (1984) Supp S.C.C. 207: (1984)
Cr LJ 162 (SC).
16. Kailash Chandra Jena v. State of Orrisa, 2011 (106) ALL INDIA Cas 697;
17. Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Admn), A.I.R. 1988 SC 1883: (1988) 3 S.C.C. 609.
18. Lakshminarayan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 Pat 378 : 45 CrLJ 211 : 210 IC 78.
19. Limbaji v State of Maharashtra , A.I.R. 2002 SC 491, (2001) 10 S.C.C. 340
20. P.R Gopala Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1974 Mad LJ (Cr) 308 : 1974 Ker LT 131.
21. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1955 SC 216;
22. Parichhat v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1972 SC 535.
23. Pratap Singh v. State, 1998 CrLJ 633 (P & H).
24. Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v State of Gujarat and Another, (2013) 1 S.C.C. 613: 2012
(10) SCALE 237.
25. Pullicherla Nagaraju v State of Andra Pradesh, (2006) 11 S.C.C. 444

26. R. Venkatakrishnan v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 S.C.C. 737: A.I.R. 2010
SC 1812.
27. Ram Narayan Popli v CBI, (2003) 3 S.C.C. 641: A.I.R. 2003 SC 2748: 2003 (1) SCR 119.
28. Ramkanth Mayekar v Celine D’Silva, 1996 1 S.C.C. 399C
29. Ravinder Singh v Janmeja Singh, A.I.R. 2000 SC 2036: (2000) 8 S.C.C. 191
30. Razik Ram v Chaudhary Jaswant Singh Chouhan, A.I.R. 1975 SC 667: (1975) 4 S.C.C.
769
31. Regina v. Murphy, (1873) 173 ER 502.
32. Roshan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 Lah 92 : 37 CrLJ 81: 159 IC 353.
33. S Nalini v State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT A.I.R. 1999 SC 2640
34. S Surinder Singh v Hardial Singh, A.I.R. 1985 SC 89
35. S.Arul Raja v State of T.N, (2010) 8 S.C.C. 233;
36. Saju v State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2001 SC 175: (2001) 1 S.C.C. 378: (2001) Cr LJ 102 (SC);
37. Saju v State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2001 SC175: (2001) 1 S.C.C. 378: (2001) Cr LJ 102 (SC).
38. Sarwan Singh, Gajjan Singh v. State, 1958 MPLJ 287 : 1958 Jab LJ 726 : A.I.R. 1958 MP
230 : 1958 CrLJ 1039.
39. Sheopat Singh v Harish Chandra, 16 ELR 435
40. Shreekantiah v. Ramayya, (1954) 57 Bom LR 632 (SC)
41. Shrukantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1995 SC 287
42. State of A.P v. Kamdimalla Subbhiah, (1962) 1 SCR 194.
43. State of Andhra Pradesh v. C Uma Maheshwara Rao, A.I.R. 2004 SC 2042; 2004 (19)
ALL IC 129; 2004 (2) CRIMES 379 ;
44. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vasudeva Rao, 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 968; 2004 Cri LJ 620 (SC):
A.I.R. 2004 SC 960; 2004 CR LJ 620
45. State of M.P v Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 617: 2009 Cr LJ 4436: (2009) 3 S.C.C. (Cri)
901.
46. State of M.P. v. KanwarKulwant Singh, 1963 MPLJ (Notes) 224.
47. State of Orissa v Arjun Das Agarwal, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 154, (1999), Cr LJ 4078
48. State of UP v Dr. Ravindra Praksh Mittal, (1992) 3 S.C.C. 300
49. State of Uttar Pradesh v Moti Ram, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1709: (1990) 4 S.C.C. 389: (1990) Cr
LJ 1910 (SC)
50. State of Uttar Pradesh v Sanjay Singh, (1994) Supp 2 S.C.C. 707: (1994) S.C.C. 170.

51. Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 1

52. SukhdeoPathan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1918 Pat 653 : 19 CrLJ 209 : 43 IC 785.
53. Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 2001 SC 1344, (2001) 3 S.C.C. 673
54. V.D. Jhingal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1966 3 SCR 736; A.I.R. 1966 SC 1762; 1966 Cr
LJ 1357
55. Veer Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (1) A.C.R. 294 (All.).
56. Vithal Tukaram More v State of Maharshtra, A.I.R. 2002 SC 2715, (2002) 7 S.C.C. 20,
(2002) S.C.C. (Cr) 1555
57. Yeshpal Metal v State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1977 SC 2433: (1977) 4 S.C.C. 540: 1977 Cr LR
(SC) 503.
58. Yeshwanth Prabhoo (Dr) v Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, and ors, (1996) 1 S.C.C. 130
59. Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, A.I.R 2003 S.C 2748.
60. Daniel Hailey Walcott v. State, A.I.R 1968 Mad. 349.
61. Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 1 S.C.C. 322.
62. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ranjit Singh, 1999 Cr LJ 1830 (SC).
63. Ahmed Ali and Ors. v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 224.
64. Aparti Charan Ray v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 271.
65. Dr.Vimala v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1963 SC 1572
66. Suresh Lal chand Lulla and Ors. v. Neela Sudhish Talpade (Smt.) & Anr., 1992 (3) Bom
CR 394.
67. Dr. S. Dutt v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1966 SC 523
68. Daniel Hailey v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1968 Mad 349
II. BOOKS
1. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSITUTION LAW OF INDIA (4TH ed., 2003).
2. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2016).
3. D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8TH ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2009).
4. SURENDRA MALIK AND SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON PENAL CODE,
1860 (2ND ed., Eastern Book Company, 2015)

5. SURENDRA MALIK AND SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CRPC AND

CRIMINAL TRIAL (2ND ed., Eastern Book Company, 2015)
6.DR. K. I. VIBHUTE, P S A. PILLAI CRIMINAL LAW (11TH ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur)
7. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKAR, ENCYCLOPEDIA LAW LEXICON, (Ashoka Law House,
2010)
8. JUSTICE GP SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (14TH ed.,
Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2016)
9. TYAGI, SURENDRA PRAKASH, CRIMINAL TRIAL (2ND ed., 1996)
10. K.D. GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (2ND ED., Universal
Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., 2013)
11. M.R. MALLICK, R.K. BAG, A.N. SAHA CRIMINAL REFERENCE (6TH ed., Eastern
Law House, 2009)
12. R. P KATHURIA`S, LAW OF CRIMES AND CRIMINOLOGY (3RD ed., Vinod
Publications, 2014)
13. S.C. SARKAR, P.C. SARKAR & SUDIPTO SARKAR, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE (11TH ed., Lexis Nexis, 2015)
14. K.T. THOMAS, RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, (33RD
ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
15. HALSBURY’S LAWS OF INDIA, CRIMINAL LAW-I, (VOL. 5(1), Lexis Nexis, 2006)
16. HALSBURY’S LAWS OF INDIA, CRIMINAL LAW-II, (VOL. 5(2), Lexis Nexis, 2006)
17. SHARMA, B.R., FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION & TRIALS,
(4TH ed., 2003)
III. STATUTES
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).
2. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.I.R. All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court
Anr Another
AP Andra Pradesh
Cr.Pc Criminal Procedure Code
Cr.L.J Criminal Law Journal
Hon’ble Honourable
PW Prosecution Witness
DW Defence Witness
IO Investigating Officer
R.P.C RabatPenal Code
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
Supp. Supplementary
u/s Under Section
v. Versus
vol. Volume

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Defence begs to submit that the Hon’ble Special Court of Sessions has exclusive
jurisdiction to try the case under Section 4 r/w Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and Section 184 r/w Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However,
The Defence reserves the right to contest the Maintainability of charges framed under the
Representation of People Act, 1951.
Sec. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Cases triable by special Judges.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-
section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only.
(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by the special
Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the special
Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special Judges than one for such
area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.
(3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence
specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of

1974), a special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-
to-day basis.
Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Procedure and powers of special Judge.—
(1) A special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed
to him for trial and, in trying the accused persons, shall follow the procedure
prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), for the trial of
warrant cases by Magistrates.
(2) A special Judge may, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to
have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, an offence, tender a pardon
to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole
circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person
concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof and any pardon
so tendered shall, for the purposes of sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 308 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be deemed to have been tendered under
section 307 of that Code.
(3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with
this Act, apply to the proceedings before a special Judge; and for the purposes of the
said provisions, the Court of the special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session

and the person conducting a prosecution before a special Judge shall be deemed to be
a public prosecutor.
(4) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in
sub-section (3), the provisions of sections 326 and 475 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before
a special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions, a special Judge shall be
deemed to be a Magistrate.
(5) A special Judge may pass upon any person convicted by him any sentence authorised
by law for the punishment of the offence of which such person is convicted.
(6) A special Judge, while trying an offence punishable under this Act, shall exercise all
the powers and functions exercisable by a District Judge under the Criminal Law
Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (Ordinance 38 of 1944).
Sec. 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Place of trial for offences triable
together.— Where-
(a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with,
and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of section
219, section 220 or section 221, or
(b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be
charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of section 223,
The offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into
or try any of the offences.
Sec.209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Commitment of case to Court of Session
when offence is triable exclusively by it –
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is
brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is
triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall-
a. commit the case to the Court of Session;
b. subject to the provisions of this code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody
during and until the conclusion of, the trail;
c. send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any,
which are to produced in evidence;
d. notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mittal Nadu is a state in the Union of Rabat. It suffers from the national ailment of corruption.
It was ruled by MDS party with its symbol as two buds. After the death of the ruling lady
Chief Minister, Ms Vijaya, the party split into two, they being MDS(U) led by Ulaganathan
Palani Selvam and MDS(K) led by Ms Kalavathy. Mr Kindran was made the Deputy General
Secretary. The P.K. Nagar Constituency Assembly seat of Ms. Vijaya fell vacant.
2. It became a challenged for both the ruling and opposition parties to win the seat to prove their
supremacy and popularity. There was internal political turmoil within the MDS party, as both
the MDS factions wanted to contest in the election and have the two-bud symbol.
3. Kindran, a very famous business man who was into exports and imports of Steel, with a
great turnover in business he decided to give back to the society and doing his bit by joining
Politics filed his nomination. MDS(U) also fielded Mr Shoodan as their candidate. This led
to the freezing of the two buds symbol by the Election Commission of Rabat and the factions
were allotted Water Bottle and Tiffin Box to MDS(K) and MDS(U) respectively.
4. In one instance, a house belonging to Mr. Rakshab, a senior minister of the MDS party was
raided on specific information. The officials recovered huge amount of cash and also a diary
noting specific amounts of few crores of rupees against many ruling party ministers, with
their signatures acknowledging receipt. However, Mr Rakshab was not investigated.
5. With the matters going out of hand, the State Election Commissioner in consultation with the
Chief Election Commissioner countermanded the election and ordered enquiry. Charges
were filed against the various candidates who indulged in such acts and notices issued. The
ECI directed the Chief Election Officer, Mittal Nadu on April 19 to ask the PK Nagar
returning officer to file a complaint with police for bribing of the voters. A note informed
that the Commission had received a report on April 9 from IT department on search and
seizure of documents indicating large-scale distribution of money to bribe voters.
5. One Mr Kushal was arrested in Hilda on 15th April 2017. He knew Mr Kindran with respect
to his business deals. All the business money that Mr Kushal possessed was seized.
Subsequently, Mr Kindran and Nagarjun, his financial planner were arrested on 17th April
2017 at Hilda amidst their Business Meeting.

THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES
1. Kindran (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.1’) has been charged under Section 120B r/w
34, 171B r/w 171E, 171F of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
2. Kushal (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.2’) has been charged under Section 120B r/w 34,
171B r/w 171E, 170 of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951.
3. Nagarjun (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.3’) has been charged under Section 120 B r/w
Section 34 of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.
4. Harish (hereinafter referred as ‘Accused no.4’) has been charged under Section 120 B r/w
Section 34 of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
r/w 34 OF R.P.C
Kindran, Kushal, Nagarjun and Harish have been falsely alleged to have hatched a Criminal
Conspiracy for which the Prosecution has led no evidence whatsoever and the essential
ingredients of Section 120A and 34 are not established by the Prosecution.
ACT, 1951
Kindran and Kushal have been implicated for bribing the Voters in the upcoming bye-elections
to PK Nagar Constituency Assembly Seat. However, there are no documents to establish the
same. This is a mere political vendetta by the opposition party and the MDS(U) party.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
Kindran and Kushal have been implicated for bribing the Election Officials in the upcoming
bye-elections to PK Nagar Constituency Assembly Seat. However, there are no documents to
establish the same. This is a baseless allegation to tarnish the image of the MDS(K) party.

PENAL CODE
Kindran has been charged for undue influence at elections for which no evidence has been
placed on record by the Prosecution. None of the essential ingredients under Section 171C of
R.P.C. are established.

PENAL CODE
Kushal has been accused for impersonating a public servant under Section 170, for which there
is no evidence whatsoever either to prove the motive or the overt-act. Thus, he has been
implicated for which Prosecution has no proof.

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
r/w 34 OF R.P.C
¶1. All conspirators are liable for the acts of each other of the crime or crimes which has been
committed as a result of the conspiracy1 Each conspirator can be attributed to each other’s action
in a conspiracy. This is reflected in the rule of evidence under Section 10 of the Evidence Act:
Conspiracy is punishable independent of its fruition. The principle of agency as a rule of liability
and not merely a rule of evidence has been accepted by the Supreme Court.
¶2. Supreme Court opined that where a number of offences are committed by several persons in
pursuance of a conspiracy it is usual to charge them with those offences as well as with the
offence of conspiracy to commit those offences2. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is
a partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the
prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act
done by any of them in pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of
them and they are jointly responsible thereof.
¶3. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering
enterprise possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the
ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held
to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the
conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. Offences of criminal conspiracy has its
foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the
intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful
means3 .
¶4. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action in as much as so long a crime is generated in
the mind of the accused, it does not become punishable. What is necessary is not thoughts, which
may even be criminal in character, often involuntarily but offence would be said to have been
committed thereunder only when that take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be
1
Regina v. Murphy (1873) 173 ER 502.
2
State of A.P v. Kamdimalla Subbhiah, (1962) 1 SCR 194.
3
Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v State of Gujarat and Another (2013) 1 S.C.C. 613: 2012 (10) SCALE 237.
Ram Narayan Popli v CBI, (2003) 3 S.C.C. 641: A.I.R. 2003 SC 2748: 2003 (1) SCR 119.

done an illegal act or an act which although not illegal by illegal means and then if nothing
further is done the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy 4
Therefore,
1. An agreement between two or more persons
2. The agreement must relate to doing or causing to done either
I. An illegal act; or
II. An act which in not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
¶5. The court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end
or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The from does not make them
conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical
manifestation of agreement is required to be established.
Therefore, the Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy are as follows:
I. An Object to be accomplished
II. A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object
III. An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby,
they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by
the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and
IV. In the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.
¶6. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported
5
to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy The offence of criminal conspiracy is
complete as soon as two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or a legal
act by illegal means. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute the illegal
conduct, not only the execution of it. It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same
unlawful object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary to show a meeting of minds,
a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose.
4
State of M.P v Sheetla Sahai, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 617: 2009 Cr LJ 4436: (2009) 3 S.C.C. (Cri) 901.
5
Yeshpal Metal v State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1977 SC 2433: (1977) 4 S.C.C. 540: 1977 Cr LR (SC) 503.

¶7. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has
knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. Mere circumstantial evidence
to prove the involvement of the accused is not sufficient to meet the requirements of criminal
conspiracy and meeting of minds to form a criminal conspiracy has to be proved by placing
substantive evidence6
¶8. For the meeting of minds two or more persons to turn into criminal conspiracy, it is important
to show that apart from knowledge of a plan to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal
means, some or all of the persons have formed the intention thereby becoming parties to the
agreement and thereby becoming conspirators7. A mere thought of criminal character8 or
9
discussion to commit a crime does not per se constitute criminal conspiracy. The criminal
thoughts need to put into action in the shape of agreement10 .
¶9. As far as the mental state is concerned, two elements required by conspiracy are: 1. Intent
to agree; 2. The intent to promote the unlawful objective of the conspiracy. It is the intention to
promote a crime that lends conspiracy its criminal cast. Besides the fact of agreement, the
necessary mens rea of the crime is also required to be established11.
¶10. In a criminal case of serious nature mens rea will not be excluded and once the charge of
conspiracy fails, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the appellant was
directly and personally connected with the acts of omission and commission12 . Mere agitating
and avenging mood of the accused is not enough to make him a member of the conspiracy . The
circumstantial evidence even if accepted in its entirety, only creates a suspicion of motive which
will not serve as a sufficient ground for framing charges in the absence of any material prima
facie showing that the motive has passed into action and that the accused is connected with the
action in question . There must be evidence to indicate that the accused was in agreement with
the other accused persons to do the act which was the ultimate object.
6
S.Arul Raja v State of T.N, (2010) 8 S.C.C. 233; Mohan Singh v State of Bihar, (2011) 9 S.C.C. 272.
7
S Nalini v State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT A.I.R. 1999 SC 2640 paras 656 and 663: (1999) 5
S.C.C. 253: (1999) Cr LJ 3124 (SC).
8
R. Venkatakrishnan v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 11 S.C.C. 737: A.I.R. 2010 SC 1812.
9
Ibid note 4.
10
Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v Central Bureau of Investigation (2009) 8 S.C.C. 1; Baldev Singh v State of Punjab
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 564
11
Saju v State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2001 SC175: (2001) 1 S.C.C. 378: (2001) Cr LJ 102 (SC).
12
Jethsur Surangbha v State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1984 SC 151: (1984) Supp S.C.C. 207: (1984) Cr LJ 162 (SC).

¶11. Motive by itself will not be a proof of conspiracy13 . Mere suspicion of motive will not
serve as a sufficient ground for framing the charges in the absence of any material, prima facie
showing that the particular motive has passed into action and that the accused is connected with
the action in question14 . Suspicion, however strong it may be, may not take the place of legal
proof and the mere fact that there was animosity between the accused and prosecuting parties
by itself, wthout any other evidence to show that the accused had hatched the conspiracy, would
not be sufficient to convict the accused15.
¶12. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies will not be held to be
adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy.
Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such
circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation16 . The circumstances relied
upon by the court for drawing the inference of conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
¶13. Common intention is a state of mind of an accused which may be inferred objectively from
his conduct displayed in the course of commission of the crime as also prior and subsequent
attendant circumstances17 . Two postulates are indispensable to attract the said provision18 ,
1. The criminal act, consisting of a series of acts, must have been done, not by one person,
but more than one person; and
2. Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal
offence must have been in furtherance of the common intention of all such person.
¶14. The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the person must be
physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be present in the actual
room; he can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about
any approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their escape, but he
must be physically present at the scene of the occurrence and must actually participate in the
13
Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Admn), A.I.R. 1988 SC 1883: (1988) 3 S.C.C. 609.
Baliya @ Bal Kishan v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 9 S.C.C. 696.
14
State of Uttar Pradesh v Sanjay Singh, (1994) Supp 2 S.C.C. 707: (1994) S.C.C. 170.
15
Saju v State of Kerala, A.I.R. 2001 SC 175: (2001) 1 S.C.C. 378: (2001) Cr LJ 102 (SC); Girija Shankar Misra
v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1993 SC 2618: (1994) Supp 1 S.C.C. 26: (1994) S.C.C. (Cr) 214
16
State of Uttar Pradesh v Moti Ram, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1709: (1990) 4 S.C.C. 389: (1990) Cr LJ 1910 (SC)
17
Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 2001 SC 1344, (2001) 3 S.C.C. 673
18
Shreekantiah v. Ramayya, (1954) 57 Bom LR 632 (SC)

commission of the offence in some way or the other at the time crime is actually being
committed19 .
¶15. It is essential here to note that the essence of S.34 of the R.P.C is that the accused person
be physically present at the scene of occurrence and must participate in the offense in some way
or the other at the time of it commission20. In view of the phraseology of S. 34, existence of
common intention is not enough, the criminal act impugned to attract S.34 must be committed
in furtherance of common intention.21
¶16. In Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad,22 Bose, J., summarized the position thus; “Now in the
case of Sec. 34 we think, it is well established that a common intention presupposes prior
concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for
the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention
of them.”23 There was no evidence that prior to the incident there was any common intention
shared by both the accused. The said intention did not develop at the time of the incident as well
and therefore, it was held that Sec. 34 of the Rabat Penal Code cannot be resorted to hold accused
guilty of any crime.24
¶17. Nothing has been made out by the prosecution to establish either directly or
circumstantially that there was any plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to
commit an offence for which they have been charged with aid of Sec. 34 of the Rabat Penal
Code nor even prima facie it was established that there was any pre-arrangement or meeting of
minds on the spur of the moment before commission of the crime.25 The prosecution must
establish beyond any shadow of doubt and must prove facts to justify an inference that all the
participants in the act had shared a common intention to commit the criminal act which was
finally committed by one of them26.
¶18. Where common intention develops during the course of an occurrence, there has to be
cogent material for the court to arrive at the finding and hold an accused vicariously liable for
19
Pullicherla Nagaraju v State Of Andra Pradesh, (2006) 11 S.C.C. 444
20
Shrukantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1995 SC 287
21
Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1944 Cal. 339.
22
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1955 SC 216; Bhopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1968
Cri.L.J. 1572.
23
Veer Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (1) A.C.R. 294 (All.).
24
Harishchandra v. State of Unknown, (2010) 46 O.C.R. 662 (Ori).
25
Parichhat v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1972 SC 535.
26
Bhabha Nanda Sarma v State of Assam A.I.R. 1977 SC 2252, (1977), 4 S.C.C. 396

the act of other accused27. It is a settled position of law that the said provision does not create a
distinct offence and it is by the participation of the accused that the intention of committing a
crime is established and the said provision is attracted28. It establishes a rule of evidence and
does not create a substantive offence29. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that
the essential ingredients of the offences, which the accused are charged under, are not fulfilled
and are thus not guilty of Criminal Conspiracy read with Common intention under Section 120B
r/w 34 of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.
ACT, 1951
¶19. Election is not merely the ultimate decision or the ultimate result. Election is every stage
from the time the notification is issued till the result is declared, and even perhaps if there is an
election petition, till the result is declared, and even perhaps if there is an election petition, till
the decision of the Election Tribunal. It is a whole continuous integrated proceeding and every
aspect of it and every stage of it and every step taken in it is a part of the election.30
¶20. The question as to when a person becomes a candidate must be decided on the language of
Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. Under that section, the candidature
commences when the person begins to hold himself out as a prospective candidate. The
determining factor, therefore, is the decision of the candidate himself, and not the act of other
persons or bodies adopting him as their candidate.31 When, therefore, a question arises under
Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 as to whether a person had become
a candidate at a given point of time, what has to be seen is whether at that time he had clearly
and unambiguously declared his intention to stand as a candidate, so that it could be said of him
that he had held himself out as a prospective candidate. That he has merely formed an intention
to stand for election is not sufficient to make him a prospective candidate, because the essence
of the matter is that he should hold himself out as a prospective candidate. That can only be
27
Amrik Singh v State of Punjab (1972) 4 S.C.C. 42
28
State of Orissa v Arjun Das Agarwal (1999) 8 S.C.C. 154, (1999), Cr LJ 4078
29
Hari Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2004) 8 S.C.C. 146
30
Shankar Nanasahab Karpe v. Returning Officer A.I.R. 1952 Bom 279
31
S Khader Sheriff v. Munnuswami A.I.R. 1955 SC 775

possible if he communicates such intention to the outside world by a declaration or conduct

from which it could be inferred that he intends to stand as a candidate.
¶21. The act amounting to a corrupt practice must be done by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent. The word ‘agent, has been
defined by explanation (1) to s 123 of the 1951 Act to mean an election agent, a polling agent
and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the
consent of the candidate. Obviously, the election agent and the polling agent here, mean the
persons appointed by the candidate as his election agent under section 40 and polling agent
under section 4632.
¶22. The expression ‘any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the
election with the consent of the candidate has been explained by the Supreme Court in
Chandrakantha Goyal v Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli33. The apex court has observed that
an agent is ordinarily a person authorised by a candidate to act on his behalf on a general
authority conferred on him by the candidate; ordinarily the agent is the understudy of the
candidate and has to act under the instructions given to him, being under his control. A leader
of a political party is not necessarily an agent of every candidate of that party; he does not act
under instructions of a candidate nor is he under the candidate’s control. The candidate is held
to be bound by the acts of his agent because of the authority given by the candidate to perform
the act on his behalf. There is no such relationship between the candidate and the leader, in the
abstract merely because he is the leader of the party. The consent of the candidate cannot be
implied from the mere fact that the act was done by the leader of his political party. The same
view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Yeshwanth Prabhoo (Dr) v
Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and ors34 and a catena of other cases.
¶23. It may be difficult to draw an inference of consent by the candidate in relation to some stray
act; but where certain activity was spread over several days and the agents and workers of the
candidate were involved, the inference of consent by the candidate was held to be reasonable in
Sheopat Singh v Harish Chandra35. In this case, there was regular transportation of voters by
32
A.I.R. 1980 SC 701
33
1996 1 S.C.C. 378
34
1996 1 S.C.C. 130
35
16 ELR 435 (SC)

the candidate’s agents to polling stations on several days of poll and the candidate did not
prohibit it, though it came to his knowledge.
¶24. Consent is the life-line to link up the candidate with the action of other persons36. But the
requisite consent of the candidate cannot be assumed merely from the fact that the candidate
belongs to the same political party of which the wrongdoer was a leader, since there can be no
presumption in law that there is consent of every candidate of the political party for every act
that is done by every acknowledged leader of the party. The leader of the political party is not
an agent of the candidate and the consent of the candidate must be proved for any wrong act
committed by the leader of his political party37. Such consent can however, be applied more
readily from circumstances such as the personal presence of the candidate at the time and place
where an offending speech is made by the party leader and without any protest from the
candidate38.
¶25. Due proof of a simple act of bribery by or with the knowledge and consent of the candidate
or by his agents, however insignificant that act may be, is sufficient to invalidate the election.
The charge of bribery is indeed a serious criminal charge. It falls within the ambit of Section
171B of the Rabat Penal Code, and is a criminal offence. If that be so, it must follow that clear
and unequivocal proof is required before a case of bribery is held to be established. It should
satisfy the test applied to the proof of offences in criminal cases. The court must be satisfied
beyond all reasonable doubt that the said bribery has been proved.39 Suspicion is not sufficient,
40
and the confession of the person, alleged to have been bribed, is not conclusive.41It is not safe
to base a finding of bribery on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice except possibly,
in very exceptional circumstances.
¶26. It is well settled that a charge of corrupt practice is substantially akin to a criminal charge.
The commission of a corrupt practice entails serious penal consequences. It not only vitiates the
election of the candidate concerned but also disqualifies him from taking part in elections for a
considerably a long time. Thus, the trial of an election petition being in the nature of an
36
Surinder Singh v Hardial Singh A.I.R. 1985 SC 89
37
Ramkanth Mayekar v Celine D’Silva 1996 1S.C.C. 399
38
Chandrakantha Goyal v Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli 1996 1 S.C.C. 378
39
C. Subba Rao v. K. Brahamananda Reddy A.I.R. 1967 AP 155, (1967) Cr LJ 691 (DB), (1966) 2 Andh WR
401
40
Re Lichfield (1869) 1 OM &H 22, p 38
41
Re Ipswich 1857 Wolf &D 173, p 178

accusation, bearing the indelible stamp of quasi criminal action, the standard of proof is the
same as in a criminal court42.
¶27. For finding out whether a particular promise or act amounts to gratification, two tests have
to be satisfied. First, that the gratification must be something which is calculated to satisfy a
person’s aim, object or desire, and secondly, such a gratification must be of some value through
it need not be something estimable in terms of money.43The word ‘gratification’ should be
deemed to refer only to cases where a gift is made of something which gives a material
advantage to the recipient.44 It is not, however, necessary that the gratification offered should
be of value only to the person to whom it is offered, and not to anybody else.45 Whether the
object, for which gratification has been paid, has been achieved or not is immaterial.46
¶28. In Jeet Mohinder Singh v Harminder Singh Jassi47 it was held that material facts and
particulars as to commission of corrupt practice alleged for first time in replication and not in
election petion, cannot be tried. In Ravinder Singh v Janmeja Singh48 the charge of bribery
was taken as a ground in the election petition. Since the charge was not substantiated by way of
disclosing the names of the informant with full responsibility in this affidavit to the petition, the
defect being of fatal nature, the trail of the allegations cannot be allowed. It is thus humbly
submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the essential ingredients of the offences, which the
accused are charged under, are not fulfilled and are thus not guilty under Section 171B r/w 171E
of R.P.C and under Section 123(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
42
Razik Ram v Chaudhary Jaswant Singh Chouhan A.I.R. 1975 SC 667 : (1975) 4 S.C.C. 769
43
Mohan Singh v. Bhanwar Lal A.I.R. 1964 SC 1366, p 1369, [1964] 5 SCR 12; Trilochan Singh v. Karnail
Singh A.I.R. 1968 Punj 416, pp 420,421, (1968) Cr LJ 1199 (FB).
44
Iqbal Singh v. Gurdas Singh A.I.R. 1976 SC 27, p 34, (1976) 3 S.C.C. 284
45
Trilochan Singh v. Karnail Singh A.I.R. 1968 Punj 416, pp 420,421, (1968) Cr LJ 1199 (FB).
46
Pillai v. Dangali A.I.R. 1942 Rang 52, pp 54,55
47
A.I.R. 2000 SC 256 : (1999) 8 S.C.C. 386
48
A.I.R. 2000 SC 2036 : (2000) 8 S.C.C. 191


PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
¶29. In order to constitute an offence under section 8, three things are essential:
1) solicitation or offer or receipt or any gratification
2) such gratification must have been asked for, offered, or paid as a motive or reward for
inducing, by illegal or corrupt means, public servant.
3) The public servant must do any act or forebear to do an act, render or attempt to render
any service or disservice to some person with central or state government or with any
public servant or named otherwise.
¶30. In B Chinnaswamy Iyenger49, the court held that without a finding that the money was
accepted or obtained by the accuse as a motive or a reward for bribing the sub judge, the accused
could not be convicted merely because it was found that a certain sum of money was handed
over to him to be delivered by him as a bribe to the Judge.
¶31. A person who merely act as a channel between the bribe giver ad the receiver public servant
without any gain to himself does not come with the section for he has received nothing by
inducing by corrupt or illegal means the public servant. It is the only the person who with a view
to corrupt public servant obtains himself a gratification in order to corrupt a public servant, that
would come within this section. Generally, it is quite possible that the public servant concerned
is a privy to such transaction. If a person without previous consent with the public servant
believes that he may be able to induce the public servant by corrupt means, would be guilty
under this section, even though the public servant remains uncorrupted.
¶32. Presumption is an inference of a certain fact drawn from other proved facts by inferring the
existence of a fact from another, the court is only applying a process of intelligent reasoning
which the mind of a prudent mind would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not
the final conclusion to be drawn from the other facts. But it could be as well as be final if it
remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule indicating the stage of
49
8 IC Mad 668

shifting the burden of proof. From a certain fact or facts the court can draw an inference and
that would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled.50
¶33. The Supreme Court while explaining the meaning of expression the “acceptance or agreed
to accuse has held that the expressions “may presume” and “shall presume “are defined in Sec
4 of the RabatEvidence Act 1872 (in short the ‘evidence act’). The presumptions falling under
the former category are compendiously are known as “factual presumptions “or “discretionary
presumptions” and those falling under the latter as “legal presumptions” or “compulsory
presumptions”. When the expression “shall be presumed” is employed in Section 20(1) of the
Act, it must have the same import of compulsion.
¶34. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under section 20 is that during
trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The
section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only
requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept
gratification.
¶35. Sections 123(1)(B) and 123(2) of the Act, 1951 deal with the ingredients of the corrupt
practices for the triable cases of the petition. The lacking of the particulars mentioned in Section
123(1)(B) makes the petition liable to be dismissed at threshold51. In Shant Kumar Jaiswal v
Nand Kumar Patel,52 where there was nothing in affidavit or in petition about corrupt practice
and it being not in conformity with proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act read with Rule 94-A of
the Election Rules 1961, election petition was liable to be dismissed as such defect was of fatal
nature.
¶36. It is well settled that an allegation of corrupt practices within the meaning of sub-sections
(1) to (8) of Section 123 of the Act, made in the election petition are regarded quasi-criminal in
nature requiring a strict proof of the same for the consequences are not only very serious but
also penal in nature. It may be pointed out that on the proof of any of the corrupt practices as
alleged in the election petition it is not only the election of the returned candidate that is declared
void and set aside but besides the disqualification of the returned candidate, the candidate
50
State of Andhra Pradesh v. C Uma Maheshwara Rao A.I.R. 2004 SC 2042; 2004 (19) ALL IC 129; 2004 (2)
CRIMES 379 ; 2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 1276; 2004 Cr LJ 2040 ( 2045) SC; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vasudeva Rao
2004 S.C.C. (Cri) 968; 2004 Cri LJ 620 (SC): A.I.R. 2004 SC 960; 2003 (4) Cri 519(SC) Kailash Chandra Jena v.
State of Orrisa 2011 (106) ALL INDIA Cas 697; 2011 (112) Cut LT 517; 2012 Cr LJ 450 (456), Para 15.
51
V Narayanaswamy v C.P. Thirunvukkarusu A.I.R. 2000 SC 694 : (2000) 2 S.C.C. 294 : 2000 (2) SCJ 503.
52
A.I.R. 2006 Chhat 18.

himself or his agent ir any other person, as the case may be, if found to have committed corrupt
practice may be punished with imprisonment under Section 135-A of the Act.
¶37. It is for these reasons that the court insists upon a strict proof of such allegation of corrupt
practice and not, decide the case on preponderance or probabilities. The evidence, therefore has
to be judged having regard to these well settled principles53. In Jagdev Singh v Partap Singh54
it was held that burden of proving corrupt practice lies on the petitioner. It has to be proved by
cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It is thus humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court
that the essential ingredients of the offences, which the accused are charged under, are not
fulfilled and are thus not guilty under Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

PENAL CODE
¶38. In order to establish undue influence, it must be proved that the influence was such as to
deprive the person affected of the free exercise of his will. It must amount to imposing a restraint
on the will of another whereby he is prevented from doing what he wishes to do or is forced to
do what he does not wish to do.
¶39. A friendly advice or an influence arising from gratitude or esteem is not undue influence,
unless thereby the functioning of a free mind is destroyed. Mere suggestions or appeals cannot
have such an effect. An influence which exists from attachment or respect or which results from
arguments or appeals to reason and judgement is not undue influence55. A threat to a member
of the legislative assembly of Bengal that if a certain candidate was elected as the President of
India, he would enforce Presidents rule in Bengal, doesn’t amount to undue influence56
¶40. An advice, argument, persuasion or solicitation cannot constitute undue influence. Honest
intercession, even importunity, falls short of controlling a person’s free exercise of will. A
persuasion, which leaves a person free to adopt his own course, is not undue influence. On the
other hand, a suggestion or an entreaty from somebody held in esteem, could be treated as undue
influence. In the absence of proof, that a person has been, in consequence of the alleged
53
S Baldev Singh Mann v Gur Charan (MLA) A.I.R. 1996 SC 1109 at 1111: (1996) 2 S.C.C. 743
54
A.I.R. 1965 SC 183
55
Amir Chand Tota Ram v. Suvhitra kriplani A.I.R. 1961 Punj 383, p 386
56
SK Singh v VV Giri A.I.R. 1970 SC 2097

influence deprived of free agency, the question of there being undue influence does not arise.
¶41. It is not objectionable to exercise an influence by acts of kindness or appeals to the free
reason and understanding of a person. So long as the free agency of the other person is not
prevented or impA.I.R.ed by obtaining a domination over his mind, it is not exercise of undue
influence. The essence of undue influence is that a person is constrained to do against his will,
but for the influence he would have refused to do it, if left to exercise his own judgment. It has
to be shown that a person’s volition has thus been thus been controlled by another, whereby he
could not pursue his own inclination being too weak to reist the importunity and in view of the
presence exercised on his mind could not act intelligently and voluntatrily and had become
subject to the will of the other who had thus obtained dominion over his mind.
¶42. For the charge of undue influence at the election, the prosecution has failed to prove all of
the following:
(a) that the accused voluntarily interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of
any electoral right; or
(b) that the accused threatened any candidate or voter or any person in whom a candidate or
voter is interested, with injury of any kind; or
(c) that the accused induced or attempted to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or
any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of divine
displeasure or of spiritual censure.
It is thus humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the essential ingredients of the
offences, which the accused is charged under, is not fulfilled and thus not guilty under Section
171F of Rabat Penal Code


PENAL CODE
¶43. To attract Section 170, R.P.C two ingredients are required:
(i) such person who pretends to hold any office as a public servant of falsely impersonating
any other person holding such office and
(ii) any person in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such
office.57
¶44. Mere personation is not an offence under this section. The person personating must do or
attempt to do some act under colour of the office of the public servant whom he personates.
Thus, when a C.I.D. constable pretending to be Police Officer demanded the production of the
Rahdari papers from people who had cattle with them, it was held that he was guilty under
Section 170, R.P.C58
¶45. There is a difference between pretending to be a particular person and pretending to hold a
particular office. When the offence itself is of pretending to hold a particular office there is no
reason for saying that the legislature meant to distinguish between a pretense to hold a particular
existing office and a pretense to hold a particular non-existing office and to penalise the former
and not the latter. So the particular office which an accused pretends to hold must exist. There
can certainly be a particular office though it does not exist. The accused personating as
lamberdar identified persons in different sale deed and altered certain sureties also. It was held
that offence under section 170 was made out as he had acted under colour of office as
lamberdar.59
¶46. It is not necessary that the act done or attempted to be done should be such an act as might
legally be done by the public servant personated. The accused was arrested when he was
demanding one anna’s worth of fruit from a fruit-seller for one piece on the representation that
he was a head constable, which in fact he was not. It was held that if he pretended to be a police-
officer and tried as such police-officer to extort money or things from a fruit-seller, he was guilty
of an offence under this section.60
57
Ajitinder Singh v. State 2000 CrLJ 1827.
58
Roshan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 Lah92 : 37 CrLJ 81: 159 IC 353.
59
Pratap Singh v. State, 1998 CrLJ 633 (P & H).
60
Aziz-ud-din. (1904) All 294.

¶47. A person who poses as a Government servant and by so obtain benefits of another services
which he would not otherwise have obtained and which the other person was bound to hand
over on demand by a Government officer, commits an offence under this section.61 There must
be an evidence of doing an official act or an attempt to do an official act. Thus, an accused went
to the platform of a railway station without a ticket and obtained admission on the pretense that
he was a C.ID. officer. It was held that his conviction under Section 170, R.P.C, was wrong.
The mere assumption of false character without any attempt to do an official act is not sufficient
to bring the offence within the meaning of Section 170, R.P.C62
¶48. Mere promise to appoint person as constable or writing something nonsense and
unintelligible on paper cannot be regarded as act done under colour of office of C.I.D., officer.63
In a case, the delinquent having pretended himself to be a Police Head Constable, stopped a
cyclist at 7 p.m. questioned him as to why he had no light and demanded Rs. 2/- as a bribe for
letting him off. The acts do not form a part of the function of a police officer and as such it
cannot be said that in exercise of the assumed character of the authority of a police officer he
had asked for the bribe.
¶49.Mere assumption of a false character without any attempt to do any official act is not
sufficient to ring the offender within the meaning of Section 170.64 In another case the accused
travelled without ticket in the railway and representing himself to e an I.A.S. officer secured
money for railway fare. It was held that the offence may answer cheating punishable under
Section 420, R.P.C but is not covered by Section 170, R.P.C ‘Act under colour of office’ points
to acts which could have not been without assuming official capacity and would not connote
acts of ministerial character which might be done without requiring the justification of offence
in the person doing.65
¶50. Cheating by personation (Section 419, R.P.C) is an offence of a general character under
which a person may pretend to be anyone other than what he really is. But cheating by
pretending to be a public servant (Section 170) is a specific offence where one pretends to be a
public servant. It has all ingredients of cheating by personation under Section 419. But when
61
Bashirullakhan , (1942) Nag 484.
62
SukhdeoPathan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1918 Pat 653 : 19 CrLJ 209 : 43 IC 785.
63
Lakshminarayan v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 Pat 378 : 45 CrLJ 211 : 210 IC 78.
64
P.R Gopala Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1974 Mad LJ (Cr) 308 : 1974 Ker LT 131.
65
State of M.P. v. KanwarKulwant Singh, 1963 MPLJ (Notes) 224.

the personation is that of a public servant and the pretender does some act, then the offence
becomes one under Section 170. 66
¶51. In another case charges were framed both under Section 170 and Section 420 , R.P.C There
were evidence on record that showed that the delinquent was in fact, working as a public
servant, on the date when trapped successfully for accepting bribe regarding which a report was
also lodged with the police. It was held that under the circumstances, it could not be said that he
was pretending to hold the office of such public servant and thus cheated any one. Hence the
charges framed under Section 170 and Section 420 of RabatPenal Code were not maintainable.67
It is thus humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the essential ingredients of the
offences, which the accused is charged under, is not fulfilled and thus not guilty under Section
170 of Rabat Penal Code.
66
Sarwan Singh, Gajjan Singh v. State, 1958 MPLJ 287 : 1958 Jab LJ 726 : A.I.R. 1958 MP 230 : 1958 CrLJ
1039.
67
(1971) 1 BCLJ 346.

THE PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, Issues raised, Arguments advanced and Authorities
cited, may this Honourable Special Sessions Court be pleased:
a. Acquit Kindran (‘Accused no.1’) for offence charged under Section 171F, 120B r/w 34,
171B r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1) of The Representation of People’s Act,
1951.
b. Acquit Kushal (‘Accused no.2’) for offence charged under Section 170, 120B r/w 34,
171B r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under Section 8 of The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 123(1) of The Representation of People’s Act,
1951.
c. Acquit Nagarjun (‘Accused no.3’) for offence charged under Section 120 B r/w Section
34 of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.
d. Acquit Harish (‘Accused no.4’) for offence charged under Section 120 B r/w Section 34
of the Rabat Penal Code, 1860.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Place: Rabat S/d_____________ S/d_____________
Date: 6/09/2017 COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES
Section 34 of R.P.C: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention—

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 120A of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Criminal Conspiracy-
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, —
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:
Provided, that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a

criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation — It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement,
or is merely incidental to that object.
Section 120B of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where
no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished
in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Section 170 of Rabat Penal Code: Personating a public servant—
Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not
hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed
character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
Section 171B of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Bribery-
(1) Whoever—(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other
person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having
exercised any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a
reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce
any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery:
Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action
shall not be an offence under this section.
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall
be deemed to give a gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be
deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing
what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed
to have accepted the gratification as a reward
Section 171E of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for bribery-
Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that
bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
Explanation—“Treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food,
drink, entertainment, or provision.

Section 171C of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Undue influence at elections—
(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral
right commits the offence of undue influence at an election.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever— (a)
threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with
injury of any kind, or (b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he
or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine
displeasure or of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the
electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).
(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action or the mere exercise or a legal
right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference
within the meaning of this section.
Section 171D of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Personation at elections —
Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper on votes in the name of any other person,
whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies
at the same election for a voting paper in his own name, and whoever abets, procures or
attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence of
personation at an election.
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has been authorised to vote
as proxy for an elector under any law for the time being in force in so far as he votes as a proxy
for such elector.
Section 171F of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for undue influence or personation at
an election —
Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine,
or with both.

Section 463 of the Rabat Penal Code: Definition of Forgery—
Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or
electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to
support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.
Section 465 of the Rabat Penal Code: Punishment for forgery—
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Taking gratification, in order, by

corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant—
Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for
himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing,
by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear
to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show
favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to
any person with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company
referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years but
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 123(1) of The Representation of People Act, 1951: Corrupt practices -

The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:—
(1) "Bribery", that is to say—
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the
consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person
whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing—
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being
a candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to—
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having
withdrawn his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a
reward—
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing
from being, a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining
from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from
voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
Explanation— For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to
pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of
entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of
any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the
account of election expenses referred to in section 78.
Section 123(7) of The Representation of People Act, 1951: Corrupt practices -

(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate
or his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent,
any assistance (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that
candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to
any of the following classes, namely:—
(a) gazetted officers;

(b) stipendiary judges and magistrates;

(c) members of the armed forces of the Union;
(d) members of the police forces;
(e) excise officers;
(f) revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as lambardars, malguzars,
patels, deshmukhs or by any other name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who
are remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of land revenue collected
by them but who do not discharge any police functions; and
(g) such other class of persons in the service of the Government as may be prescribed:
Provided that where any person, in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the
classes aforesaid, in the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty, makes any
arrangements or provides any facilities or does any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to,
any candidate or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of /the candidate or his
election agent (whether by reason of the office held by the candidate or for any other reason),
such arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to be assistance for the
furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election.

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND ANNEXURES
1. Witness Statements – Kindran----------------------------------------- 37
2. Witness Statements – Kushal------------------------------------------ 39
3. Witness Statements – Nagarjun--------------------------------------- 40
4. Witness Statements- Election Commissioner---------------------- 41
5. IT Surveillance Officer Report--------------------------------------- 43
6. Hate Mails--------------------------------------------------------------- 44
7. 65B Certificate--------------------------------------------------------- 46
8. Cash Receipts----------------------------------------------------------- 48
9. Summons to Chief Surveillance Officer ---------------------------- 50
10.Summons to Election Commissioner of Rabat --------------------- 51

Annexure No. 1
WITNESS STATEMENTS
KINDRAN:
I am Kindran, S/o Indran,. I am 55 years old, I was born on 1 April 1962, I reside at, 1, Mettu
Street, Mannai, Mittal Nadu – 1.
I am a businessman dealing with export and import of steel. I have my establishments across
the country. The main markets are located in Mannai, Hilda, Sarwar and Chowkatta. I get orders
from all over the world. The business has picked up and grown over the years, I have thousands
of employees working under me and our steel is in great demand across the globe. Our turnover
is very good and everything is working in our favour.
I always thought I had to give back to our society and decided that I could do this by joining a
political party and hence joined Mitali Development Sangha. I actively took part in the election
campaigns and other activities of the party.
After the sad demise our beloved Chief Minister Vijaya, her PK Nagar Assembly seat fell
vacant, and I was nominated by the executive council members as the candidate for the PK
Nagar Constituency. The by-election of PK Nagar Constituency was scheduled to happen on
12th April 2017. I filed my nomination papers for the said by-election. Unfortunately by then
the MDS was split into two factions being MDS(K) and MDS(U) due to political turmoil.
During this time I received several hate mails from UPS asking me to withdraw my nomination.
I paid no heed to it, since I wanted to serve our society and just saw this threat as a passing
cloud. Consequently, the Election Commission froze the two bud symbol and allotted us the
Water Bottle Symbol. Given the acute water shortage in Mannai and the ongoing struggle for
water between Mannai and neighbouring states we thought the citizens could relate a lot with
this symbol as it was in consonance with our Election Manifesto. We were happy with our new
election symbol and we had begun intense election campaign through the water bottle symbol.
There was a lot of news published every day in the print and visual media alleging all the
political parties contesting in the PK Nagar constituency by-election of bribing the voters but
little did I understand about what was happening as I was working as transparently as possible
and on the other hand I was completely perplexed as to why things were blown out of proportion.

On April 9th 2017 a Diary was seized in Mr Rakshab’s house which allegedly contained the
entries of many ruling party ministers with their signatures acknowledging the receipt to the
acceptance of few crores of rupees however I deny any such entries in my name.
On April 17th 2017 while I was on one of my business trips I was arrested by the Hilda Police
late in the evening without any reasoning or justification.

Annexure No. 2
KUSHAL:
I am Kushal S/o Vishal, I am 50 years old I was born on 10 October 1967, I reside at 2 Park
Street, Mannai, Mittal Nadu – 2.
I am an Entrepreneur based in Mannai, Mital Nadu. I deal with the export and import of steel.
I keep traveling around the world and have my business in various parts of the world. I have
worked really hard in this business for the last 25 years. Finally with experience, I am able to
strike a few really good business deals and see some good money. Most of my transactions
happen through cash itself as most of my customers do not want to account these purchases.
Even I am okay with cash transactions as long I get my payments on time. Many a times with
known customers, I agree for credit sales, and collect the money once and for all after supplying
the steel for consecutive 3-4 months. I am highly committed to my business and I am not
interested in things like Politics. I have been alleged as an election agent of one Mr Kindran
whom I know only professionally and there have been instances wherein I have made a few
business deals with him.
Off late there are reports in the Media that I acting as the Election Agent have allegedly bribed
the Election Commission Officials to get the two-bud symbol to Mr Kindran who was
apparently the candidate for the P.K Nagar Constituency by election representing the MDS(K)
party. I have no criminal cases against me, whatsoever in any part of Rabat but I was arrested
on 15th April 2017 when I was in the middle of a business meeting in the Top End Hatty Hotel
in Hilda. It has been alleged falsely that I was in possession of 2 crores and 30,000 bitcoins at
the time of my arrest. When the police arrested me, no arrest or search warrant was served.
Without allowing me to speak or even question them, they dragged me to the Police Jeep.
Nothing was found either at the Hotel or at my residence in Chowki. it has also been alleged
that there was a telephonic conversation between Mr Kindran and I regarding this entire election
symbol fiasco, of which I am not aware of. I have been implicated in the entire political
conspiracy. I am a very busy businessman with no internet whatsoever in politics. I am unaware
of the political fiasco. I don't see why I am involved in this case.

Annexure No. 3
NAGARJUN:
I am Nagarjuna S/o Gajanan I am 55 years old, I was born on 10 September 1962, I reside at 3
Subhedar Street, Mannai, Mital Nadu – 3..
I have been working as the financial planner of Mr Kindran for the past 15 Years. Mr Kindran
is a very famous businessman in Mital Nadu. He deals with the import and export of steel. His
customers are from all over the world. He has a very great turnover every year. Turnover ranges
from 50-100 crores. Customers are ready to buy the steel irrespective of the price because they
are very durable and of a very good quality. Mr Kindran is very much dedicated to his business
and is busily involved with the business all through the year.
He usually prefers cash transactions and all the deals happen through hard money. He also
undertakes credit sales at times with known customers, and collects the money once and for all
once in 3-4 months.
I work in the capacity of his financial planner alone. On the fateful date of 17th April 2017 I
was arrested in Hilda without any warrant. I have no idea why I am involved in this case. I am
able to furnish all the proof with regard to the cash possessed by Mr Kindran.

Annexure No. 4
SANDEEP DESAI, THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF RABAT:
I am the Election Commissioner of Rabat, residing in Hilda. I was appointed to this post on 25th
February 2015.
After the sad demise of Ms Vijaya, the P K Nagar Assembly Constituency seat fell vacant.
Midterm election for the P K Nagar constituency was announced to be held on 12 April 2017.
There was hectic parleys between many political parties whose poll managers and their minions
settled around the constituency and worked round the clock canvasing for their party candidates.
Kindran filed his nomination along with party members. UPS also fielded Mr. Shoodanas his
candidate. Meanwhile the rebel group appealed to the State Election commission claiming the
Two-buds symbol. Mr. Katpady Samy also appealed to EC claiming majority support and also
produced the signature of 112 MLAs. The election commission froze the Two buds symbol and
allotted Water Bottle and & Tiffin Box symbol respectively for Kindran and Shoodan, who is
the rebel candidate. Their parties were christened MDS(K) & MDS(U) respectively.
From the office of Election Commission of Rabat, we do not appreciate any sort of corrupt
practices and take strict measures against the electoral offences. We have handled the situation
at the P.K Nagar Constituency by-election through our subordinate officers cautiously. We
haven’t received any sort of complaint or issue regarding Bribery to any official of Election
Commission of Rabat.
However, we have received complaints regarding the Bribing of voters prevailing in the PK
Nagar Constituency by all the three contesting parties. All the three major parties, MDS(K),
MDS(U) and KDK fielded strong candidates and worked in a frenzy to get their nominee
elected. The air was thick with accusation of the flow of money to buy the voters. Each accused
the other of trying to buy votes by unfair means either by money or by giving freebies like white
goods, which they can collect from dealers.
They were issued with tokens along with the pamphlets. The tokens were such that three tokens
together made a complete algorithmic code, which could be used to initiate a UPI (Unified
Payment Interface) transaction into any designated account from a designated account outside
Rabat. The identity of the sender account could not be deciphered by anyone. Likewise, if five
tokens could be put together, they generated a unique algorithm which enabled accessing a

bitcoin stash and allowed incoming transfer of bitcoins. Popular media reported that the bitcoin
transfer was more preferred as it gave enough value to buy entire month’s rations for a family
of 5 as per the prevailing CPI (Consumer Price Index) rates. The EC came to know of this and
had ordered enquires and sought help from the centre for protection for a free and fair election.
A heavy battalion of central reserve police force was deployed and they checked every vehicle
and carried out searches on receipt of complaints from people and the media. The media also
covered the events extensively and there were many sting operations showing distribution of
money and freebies by almost all party contestants.

Annexure No. 5
Harsh Pratap Singh
CHIEF SURVEILLANCE OFFICER
GOVERNMENT OF HILDA
I, Harsh Pratap Singh was requested by Sumant Gill, Assistant Police Commissioner to keep
constant watch of physical movements and all internet transactions of those who were perceived
to be the suspects. I headed the surveillance team comprising of Ramu, Raju, Gita and Sita. I
prepared this report after my team and I duly conducted the Surveillance over the course of four
weeks from March 1st, 2017 owing to the alleged political turmoil and large-scale accumulation
and distribution of unaccounted money and other commodities. We had kept close watch over
the movements of the suspects. It was our observation that they were primarily visiting business
houses and other businessmen. We did not observe any cash being transferred between any of
them at any point of time. The suspects were also followed whenever they left to the state to
ensure that they did not indulge in any unlawful activities outside. However, the surveillance
officers have reported to me that no suspicious activities were noted.
Our method of surveillance was on a 12 hour-shift program. This ensured that the suspects were
kept monitored at all times. However, we did not have any visual on the suspects whenever they
were lodged inside a room. We have also observed during our course of surveillance that
Kindran and Kushal had not met at any place. We had followed both of them at all times and
did not find them indulged in transferring money to each other or anyone else. Based on the
Surveillance conducted on the suspects we did not find any incriminating documents or evidence
against Kindran or Kushal in furtherance of our investigation of the said suspects. We however
did find from our intel and during the course of investigation that another suspect, Rakshab had
been involved in the transaction of a lot of unaccounted money. We hereby furnish this report
to be authentic and certified. We further handover this Report to Sumant Gill, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Hilda.
Signature of Chief Surveillance Officer: Sd/-

Annexure No. 6
MAILS SENT FROM MR. ULGANATHAN PALANI SELVAM TO MR. KINDRAN
1.
TO : kindran78@gmail.com
FROM : ups667@yahoo.co.in
SUBJECT : WITHDRAW YOUR NOMINATION!
Mr Kindran,
Hope you are doing well. You ought to be. How else will you be if you try to come into politics
and try to take over the entire party?. You very well know that Vijayamma chose me as her
successor. I have been in this party for so long. It has been my dream to be the Chief Minister
of Mannai. How can you try to conquer now? You think I will allow you to do the same? You
thing I will allow you to contest for the PK Nagar Constituency? Haha. That's a far fetched
dream! I am not going to spare anyone who tries to come my way. By hook or cook I want to
be the Chief Minister and I want the PK Nagar Constituency under my control. You better
withdraw your nomination by April 1st, or else you will have to face dire consequences. You
know I am a man of my word. I am going to harm your reputation and go to any extent to ensure
that PK Nagar Constituency is all mine. Please do the needful if you want to live a peaceful
life!!
2.
Mr Kindran
Despite sending you mails you have the audacity to not reply? Let's see how you will contest in
the elections. Let's see how you and your family will live peacefully. You are a multi

millionA.I.R.e businessman. You have so much of proceeds and revenue out of it. What more
do you want? Politics is my cup of tea, let me have it. Within the next week if you don't withdraw
your nominations I will create the circumstances in such a way that you can't contest in the
elections. Dont take this lightly! You are still very young, You have a long life ahead. I will ruin
your life. I know people from all parts of Rabat and beyond. It takes me hardly any time to
tamper with the nominations. Beware you brat!
3.
Mr Kindran
Now you must know about the consequences I was talking about. Yes it's you all over the media.
You are becoming famous. You must be happy. Aren't you? Haha. This is what happens to
anyone who goes against me. This is just the beginning. You have a long journey ahead of you.
Wait for it!

Annexure No. 7
IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSION AT HILDA
C.C. No. 101 of 2017
BETWEEN:
STATE OF RABAT PROSECUTION
AND
KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS DEFENCE
APPLICATION UNDER 65B OF RABATEVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ACCOMPANYING

AN AFFIDAVIT
That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Defence prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to allow the Defence to lead evidence by marking the printed copies of
documents i.e. the emails sent by Mr. Ulganathan Palani Selvam through his email ID
ups667@yahoo.co.in to Mr. Kindran kindran78@gmail.com which has been obtained in the just
decision of the case.

AFFIDAVIT
I, Adi Narayana, the Director of Central Forensic Science Laborartory, Hilda, aged about 64
years, Residing at No.534, Jalavayu Towers, NGEF Layout, Indiranagara Post, Hilda, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows
1. I submit that I am the Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hilda having
certified the electronic records and documents in the above case and well conversant
with the facts of the case.
2. I have no personal interests in the verdict of this case.
3. I submit that all the emails sent by Mr. Ulganathan Palani Selvam through his email ID
ups667@yahoo.co.in to Mr. Kindran kindran78@gmail.com and hence the printouts of
the same are the evidence that I hereby certify as the bonafide and authentic.
WHEREFORE, I most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the
accompanying affidavit in the interest of just decision of the case.
DEPONENT
Sworn before me: Sd/-

Annexure No. 8
CASH RECEIPTS


Annexure No. 9
IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Harsh Pratap Singh
Chief Surveillance Officer
Hilda
Whereas, the complaint been made before me that Kindran, Kushal, Nagarjun and Harish has
or is suspected to have committed the offence under Section(s) 170, 120B r/w 34, 171F, 171B
r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and under Section 123(1) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and it appears to me that
you are likely to give material evidence or to produce any document or other thing for the fair
trial.
You are hereby summoned to appear before this Court on the 6th day of October 2017 at Ten
o‘clock in the forenoon, to produce such document or thing or to testify what you know
concerning the matter of the said complaint, and not to depart thence without leave of the Court.
You are hereby warned that, if you shall without just excuse neglect or refuse to appear on the
said date, a warrant will be issued to compel your attendance.
Seal of the Court: Deemed to be affixed Signature of the Magistrate: Sd/-

Annexure No.10
IN THE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA
SUMMONS TO WITNESS
(under sections 61)
To,
Sandeep Desai,
Election Commissioner,
Rabat
Whereas, the complaint been made before me that Kindran, Kushal, Nagarjun and Harish has
or is suspected to have committed the offence under Section(s) 170, 120B r/w 34, 171F, 171B
r/w 171E of Rabat Penal Code, 1860; under section 8 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and under Section 123(1) of The Representation of People’s Act, 1951, and it appears to me that
you are likely to give material evidence or to produce any document or other thing for the fair
trial.
You are hereby summoned to appear before this Court on the 6th day of October 2017 at Ten
o‘clock in the forenoon, to produce such document or thing or to testify what you know
concerning the matter of the said complaint, and not to depart thence without leave of the Court.
You are hereby warned that, if you shall without just excuse neglect or refuse to appear on the
said date, a warrant will be issued to compel your attendance.
Seal of the Court: Deemed to be affixed Signature of the Magistrate: Sd/-

Christ Defence Surana 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christ Defence Surana 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christ Defence Surana 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SURANA AND SURANA TRIAL ADVOCACY WEST ROUNDS – 2017 Page no.

IN THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT OF SESSIONS, HILDA

C.C. NO. 101 of 2017

KINDRAN, KUSHAL & OTHERS

FOR OFFENCES CHARGED UNDER: SECTIONS 170, 171B r/w 171E,

ON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

 THE TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………….Page No. 2

 THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………............................Page No. 3

 THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………...............................Page No. 7

 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………….............................Page No. 8

 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………...Page No. 10

 THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES……………………….............................Page No. 11

 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………..Page No. 12

 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………….Page No. 13

3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE

4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171F OF THE RABAT

5. THE ACCUSED A2 IS NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT

 THE PRAYER……………………………………………...............................Page No. 29

 RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES……..................................Page No. 30

 THE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND ANNEXURES...................................Page No. 36

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

51. Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 1

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

5. SURENDRA MALIK AND SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON CRPC AND

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R. All India Reporter

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SLP Special Leave Petition

u/s Under Section

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

3. THE ACCUSED A1 AND A2 ARE NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE

4. THE ACCUSED A1 IS NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 171F OF THE RABAT

5. THE ACCUSED A2 IS NOT GUILTY UNDER SECTION 170 OF THE RABAT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

1. An agreement between two or more persons

2. The agreement must relate to doing or causing to done either

Therefore, the Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy are as follows:

II. A plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object

IV. In the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Place: Rabat S/d_ S/d_