M.S.

COLLEGE OF LAW MUMBRA

MOOT COURT PREPOSITION SUBMISSION TYLLB SEM-V, 2023-24

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 132 AND 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. / 2021

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF RAMIL WADU...................................................................PETITIONER

v.

RAHUL RAGHUVANSHI.....................................................................DEFENDANT

SUBMITTED TO,

MS COLLEGE OF LAW, MUMBRA

SUBMITTED BY

RAKESH M. BHANDARI

DIV- A, ROLL NO-08

TYLLB, SEM-V,
Year-2023-24
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................4

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................5

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................9

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................10

5. ISSUES RAISED..........................................................................................12

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE

THE SESSION’S COURT ORDER?

III. WHETHER THE CASE HAS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO

LIMITATION ACT OR HAS TIME BARRED AS PER THE RELEVANT
LEGAL PROVISIONS?

2
IV. WHETHER SANCTION IS REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION OF
RAHUL RAGHUVANSHI AS HE IS MEMEBR OF STATE ASSEMBLY?

V. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE FINDINGS

OF JUSTICE VISWANATHAN COMMISSION AS REGARDS ITS
IMPLEMENTATION OR NOT?

6. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.......................................................................13

7. ARGUEMENT ADVANCED........................................................................16

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF..................................................................................26

3
 [A]. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.No ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1 AIR All India Reporter

2 All ER All England Law Reports
3 ANR Another

4 BC British Columbia
5 Bom Bombay
6 CA Civil Appeal
7 Cal Calcutta
8 Cri Criminal

9 CriLJ Criminal Law Journal

10 CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
11 E.R. England Reports
12 Fed Federal
13 Guj Gujarat
14 Hon‟ble Honorable

15 ILR Indian Law Reports

16 IPC Indian Penal Code
17 Ltd. Limited
18 M.P.L.J Madhya Pradesh Law Journal
19 MANU Manupatra
20 ORS Others

21 Pat. Patna
22 QBD Queen‟s Bench Division

23 SC Supreme Court

24 SCR Supreme Court Reports

4
 ]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

II. LIST OF STATUTES

• The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

• The Indian Evidence Act,1872

• The Indian Penal Code,1860

5
S.NO Case Title Citation

1. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana 1976 Cr LJ 203 (SC)

2. Guru Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2001 Cr LJ 487 (SC)

3. Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1969 SC

4. K.Anbazaghan v. Superintendent of police

AIR 2004 SC 524

5. Kamla Singh v. State AIR 1955 Pat. 209

6. Narain v. State 1953 Cr LJ 1610

7. Paramjeet Singh v. State MANU/DE/0244/2013

8. Queen Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah (1896) ILR 23 Cal 604

9. Rambharose v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1974 M.P.L.J. 406

10. Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294

11. State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and AIR 1996 SC 2766
anr

12. Sukhram v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 772

13. T. N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka (2002) 1 SCC 219

14. Yusuf v. State of U.P. 1973 Cr. LJ 1220

6
FOREIGN CASES

S.No. Case Title Citation

1. Queen v. McNaughten 8 Eng. Rep. 718

[1843]
2. State v. Andrea Yates 171 S.w.3d 215

3. The State v. Andrea Sneiderman 862 F. ed 1541 (Fe d.

Cir. 2012

LIST OF BOOKS

S.NO. TITLE

1 K. I. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI'S ED., LEXIS

. CRIMINAL LAW (10TH NEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS,2008).
2 MODI‟S, MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE AND ED LEXIS
RD
. TOXICOLOGY (23 ., NEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS, 2006)
3 RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (30TH EDITION,
. WADHWA AND

COMPANY, 1896)

7
 II. LIST OF JOURNAL

1. Insanity defense work group, American Psychiatric Association Statement on Insanity

Defense

III.LIST OF INTERNET SOURCES

1. Hallucinations and Delusions – How to respond Canadian Mental Health Association,

http://www.cmha.ca/hallucinationsand delusions-howtorespond.pdf.
2. Malcom Mckenzie Park, The strange case of Andrea Yates and Dr Park Dietz, Dec 2008,
available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papaers.cfm?abstract_id=365241.

8
 [C]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Honorable Supreme Court of India under the Article 132
and 134 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant most humbly and respectfully submits
to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

9
 [D]. STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the village of Mylapore in Ramil Wadu, there is an eminent businessman turned politician, Rahul
Raghuvanshi. He has been elected to the Ramil Wadu assembly three consecutive times. Rahul, a
management graduate from Annamalai University, was an active student in youth politics.

He was the President of the Janata Morcha Youth Wing, and thereafter he joined Janata Morcha,
held several posts within the party, and, at the young age of 31, became MLA. Rahul is a second-
generation politician and the son of renowned industrialist Bhargav Raghuvanshi. Shri Bharghav
Raghuvanshi has been a two-time MLA and three-time MP from Mylapore constituency. He also
held the portfolio of Minister for Urban Development when Janata Morcha was in power in 1987.

Rahul Raghuvanshi was in a fix-and-catch situation as the laborers besieged the bungalow of Rahul
Raghuvanshi at the behest of Babu Shankar. On account of political rivalry, there was wide media
coverage of the issue. On February 2, 2019, the situation was extremely turbulent; hence, the local
police imposed Section 144 of Cr. PC and also detained a few laborers' U/S 151 of Cr.PC.

The detention of many laborers exceeded the prescribed time ordained by Cr.PC. As Rahul
Raghuvanshi used his clout and influence to suppress the agitation, the family member of a worker
filed a Habeas Corpus petition on February 6, 2019, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Shennai High
Court, challenging the detention of several workers and also claiming compensation.

The Shennai Bench, consisting of the Chief Justice, allowed the petition, gave relief to the
petitioners, and also awarded compensation. The trade union leader Babu Shankar urged the leader
of the opposition in the Tamil Nadu assembly to broach a debate on Rahul Raghuvanshi’s undue
influence and causing loss to poor laborers. This led to furor in the Assembly, demanding the
resignation of Rahul Raghuvanshi, who was the standing committee for education and environment.

Rahul Raghuvanshi did not relent. This led to social unrest, and there were protest marches across
the city and agitation, which led to Gheraos and Bandhs.

The Home Minister tried to control the situation with the Rapid Action Force and local constabulary.
In the course of this chaos, Rahul Raghuvanshi made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy Stadium on
February 16, 2019. In the course of his speech, he called the agitators of the Samaj Sanghtans ‘wild
creatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a ‘fitting reply’ to the protesters.

10
This caused a furor, and there was a law and order problem that resulted in casualties and damage to
property. Rahul Raghuvanshi was held responsible for whatever transpired, and he was compelled to
resign from the committees he was part of and the portfolio he held. There was round-the-clock
coverage of the incidents of violence by the media. The opposition demanded an inquiry into the
incidents and insisted on setting up a commission.

A commission was constituted on 1 st April, 2019 by the ruling party, i.e., Janata Morcha, under the
auspices of retired judge Justice Vishwanath to inquire into and investigate this matter. The commission
submitted its report before the House on June 30, 2019 of the incidents of February 2019.

There were elections; hence, the commission report was debated fiercely and kept in abeyance. Samaj
Sanghatan captured Power, and Muthuswamy Nair became the Chief Minister on November, 2019, and
the commission report was again debated with disruptions in the House. The speech delivered by Rahul
Raghuvanshi was regarded as a hate speech causing enmity between two communities; hence, he was
booked under Sec. 153A of the IPC, for which punishment was imposed in 3 years. After a lot of
pandemonium, the Commission report was implemented in November, 2019. The home minister
demanded the arrest of Rahul Raghuvanshi, and Rahul Raghuvanshi was arrested and produced before
the magistrate on November 12, 2019.

The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and convicted Rahul Raghuvanshi of 3 years
imprisonment. The order was challenged in the court of sessions or district court; on 22 nd November
2019, the order was upheld, and eventually it was challenged in the Shennai High Court. The High
Court admitted the appeal and overruled the conviction of Rahul Raghuvanshi on July 16, 2021, and
found that the lower courts made a gross error in passing such orders. The state challenged the High
Court order of acquittal in the Supreme Court of India.

HENCE THE PRESENT MATTER RESTS BEFORE THIS HONORABLE

COURT
 [E] ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE

THE SESSION’S COURT ORDER?

III. WHETHER THE CASE HAS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO

LIMITATION ACT OR HAS TIME BARRED AS PER THE RELEVANT
LEGAL PROVISIONS?

IV. WHETHER SANCTION IS REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION OF

RAHUL RAGHUVANSHI AS HE IS MEMEBR OF STATE ASSEMBLY?

V. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE FINDINGS

OF JUSTICE VISWANATHAN COMMISSION AS REGARDS ITS
IMPLEMENTATION OR NOT?

12
 [F] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that this appeal
petition is maintainable in this Court under Article 132 and 134 of Constitution of
India. Also the fact that the accused is liable for hate speech under section 153 A of
Indian Penal Code (because both the Mens Rea and as well as the Actus Reus were
present) was neglected when the accused was acquitted of the charge.

II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE

THE SESSION’S COURT ORDER?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that the High Court is not justified in
setting aside the session’s court order. It is submitted that in order to constitute an
offence under Section 153A of the IPC, it is expedient that only mere words should
not be looked into but sometimes the intention is obscured as well as it may possess an

13
underlying hidden meaning which also needs to be looked into. Applying the said principle to
the speech of the respondent, it becomes explicitly clear that even though the outward
appearance of the speech might seem innocuous, still the true meaning needs to be ascertained
on the basis of the surrounding situation and circumstances engulfng the speech due to which
investigation is required to ascertain the said hidden meaning.

III. WHETHER THE CASE HAS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO

LIMITATION ACT OR HAS TIME BARRED AS PER THE RELEVANT
LEGAL PROVISIONS?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that this case has nothing pertaining
to Limitation act or is time barred as per the relevant legal provisions.

IV. WHETHER THE SANCTION IS REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION

OF RAHUL RAGHUVANSHI AS HE IS MEMBER OF STATE
ASSEMBLY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the sanction is not
required for prosecution of Rahul Raghuvanshi as he is member of state
assembly.

14
V. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE FINDINGS
OF JUSTICE VISWANATHAN COMMISSION AS REGARDS TO
ITS IMPLEMENTATION OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that the government is not bound by the
report of the commission.

15
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

It is most humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that this
appeal petition under section 132 and 134 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable. Article 132 of The Constitution of India reads as follows:
An Appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of The
High Court, whether in civil, criminal, or other proceedings, if the High Court certifies
that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution.
Article 134 of The Constitution of India reads as follows:
An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in
a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on
appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death;
or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to
death; or
(c) Certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court: Provided that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions
as may be made in that behalf under clause

( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain
and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding
of a High Court in the territory subject to such conditions and limitations as may be
specified in such law.

16
The power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider and general. It vests
in the SC plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals against:

(i) Any judgment, decree, determination, or order,

(ii) In any cause or matter,
(iii) Passed or made by any court or tribunal

In Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat 1

It was held by The Supreme Court that :- Under Article 132 there is no room for any
doubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and orders
passed by any court or tribunal in the country. In addition to the Appellate power, the
court has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court in
the country. The plenary jurisdiction of this Court is to grant leave and hear appeals
against any order of the court or tribunal, confers power of special superintendence
over all courts and tribunals including subordinate courts of Magistrate and District
Judge. This court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in India.

In an another case of Arunachalam vs. P.S.R. Sadhanantham 2, it was again held by

the SC that:- Article 132 of the constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with a
plentitude of plenary, appellate power, over all courts and Tribunals in India. The
power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying
that power. But, the very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itself
within which to exercise such power.

1. 1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3) 936

2. 1979 AIR 1284

17
Under Article 136, the very exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of general
public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. But, with findings
of fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High
Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted “perversely or otherwise improperly”

Here there has been the respondent murdered the victim and then also the respondent has
been acquitted from the offence of murder under section 302 of IPC committed by him. This
reckless behavior of High Court clearly proves that the decision was given perversely or
improperly, and therefore, this petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India.

In this case there has been miscarriage of justice as the accused was acquitted by the High
Court despite of the Commission of Murder. This petition cannot be dismissed and hence is
maintainable in this Hon’ble Court.

3
In case of Indira Kaur and ors Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor , it was held the following, If and
when the Court is satisfied that great injustice has been done it is not only the right but also
the duty of this court to reverse the error and the injustice and to upset the finding
notwithstanding that fact it has been affirmed thrice.

In this case also this Hon’ble Court has not only but it is also the duty of the SC to reverse the
error and injustice and pass an appropriate, just and equitable order.
In the present case there has been injustice with the victim and the appellant being the
aggrieved party seeks justice. Therefore, the appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in order to obtain justice.

18
II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE
THE SESSION’S COURT ORDER?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that the High Court is not justified in
setting aside the session’s court order.

Section 153A of IPC, violation of which forms the basis of registering the
crime against the Respondent reads thus :

“[153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race,

place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony.—

(1) Whoever — (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible

representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities,
and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, [or]

[(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that
the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence
or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to
use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants
in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any
religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity
for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of
insecurity

19
amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community,] shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.—

(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section

(1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of

religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment
which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fne.]

In so far as the offence under Section 153A IPC is concerned, it provides for
punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other
ground whatsoever or brings about disharmony or feeling of hatred or ill-will
between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities.

As per the given facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amish Devgan , it is submitted that people
exerting influence stand on a different footing and are accordingly obligated to
exercise more restraint and speak responsibly. That the respondent enjoys a
humongous fan following and as a result his speech carries substantial weightage and
credence among people. It is submitted that in order to constitute an offence under
Section 153A of the IPC, it is expedient that only mere words should not be looked
into but sometimes the intention is obscured as well as it may possess an underlying
hidden meaning which also needs to be looked into. Applying the said principle to the
speech of the respondent, it becomes explicitly clear that even though the outward

appearance of the speech might seem innocuous, still the true meaning needs to be
ascertained on the basis of the surrounding situation and circumstances engulfng
the speech due to which investigation is required to ascertain the said hidden
meaning.

20
Inviting our attention to the Section 153A of IPC, it is submitted that section starts with
the word 'promoting' which with all its connotation lays down that promoting enmity
between different groups on several grounds is sufficient to fall within the ambit of this
section. That the section 153A in no manner whatsoever envisages a pre-requisite
condition that violence or harm must ensue as a result of the act of promotion of
enmity.

21
III. WHETHER THE CASE HAS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO
LIMITATION ACT OR HAS TIME BARRED AS PER THE
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that this case has nothing
pertaining to Limitation act or is time barred as per the relevant legal provisions.

Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary, the provisions of the

Limitation Act do not apply to a curative petition. However, as per Order XLVIII
Rule 3 of the Rules, it shall be filed within reasonable time from the date of
judgment or order passed in the review petition.

As per Article 134 of the Constitution of India, an appeal lies to the Supreme
Court in criminal cases if the High Court-

a. has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him
to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years; or

b. has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to
imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years; or

c. certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

Limitation period is 60 days from the date of grant of the certificate by the High
Court.

22
IV. WHETHER THE SANCTION IS REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION
OF RAHUL RAGHUVANSHI AS HE IS MEMBER OF STATE
ASSEMBLY?

Sanction in general means prior permission or approval of the authority to validate

something. Black’s Law Dictionary defines sanction as a part of law used to inflict a
penalty for its violation and seeks its obedience. The Code of Criminal Procedure
1973 (“the Code”) takes former into consideration and provides for two types of
sanctions – Sanction to Prosecute (Sec.132) and Sanction to take Cognizance (Sec.196
and 197). Difference lies at the stage of criminal machinery at which the sanction is
granted.
Sanction to prosecute is to be taken before filing a complaint or F.I.R whereas Sanction
to take cognizance is to be granted at pre-cognizance and post investigation stage.

NEED FOR SANCTIONS

Sanctions are necessary only in two conditions. First, in case where offence committed
is punishable under Chapter VI of the IPC. It includes offences like sedition, criminal
conspiracy, waging war against the Government etc. or second for Public Interest i.e to
prevent unwanted intruders in state matters, to protect public servants from
harassment, malicious, mala fide and false prosecutions and for smooth and efficient
functioning of the administrative system. This process of sanctions would prevent
unordinary arrests of public servants. Sanctions are favoured on three grounds- (a)
Frivolous cases are not filed, (b) Public Servants are not harassed and (c) Efficacy of
administrative machinery is not tampered, as held in the case of Subramanian Swamy
vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr.

In the case of R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay, Chief Minister was accused to have
committed offence under Section 161 and 165 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act.
The question that needed to be answered was whether there is requirement of sanction
to prosecute as the person alleged has ceased to be the chief minister but is still a
sitting MLA. The court opined that there is no such need for the sanction as he is no
more in the capacity of public servant in which he had committed the said offence.
The accused in such case must continue to be a public servant till the date cognizance
is taken by the court. It was held that MLAs are excluded as public servant under IPC
as they are not paid by the executive government for his duty. Also, legislature is not
considered to be within the ambit of Government as per Section 21(12) of IPC.
23
In the case of M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India, it was again questioned regarding
MLAs as public servants. The court conceded that MLA is not in the service of State
Government, thus not a public servant. The sanctioning authorities in such cases
would be the Central or State Governments under which that servant works. However
the ministers are considered to be public servants as they discharge their official duties
as per the norms of State Government.

MPs and MLAs are not public servants under Section 21 of IPC. However, there lies a
contrast in the definition of public servant under the Act. Also, the cases which
involve MPs and MLAs are in most instances delayed or not investigated properly.
Delays are caused because of the influence these people have over the smooth
working of the case. The 239th Law Commission Report on “Expeditious
Investigation and Trial of criminal cases against Influential public personalities” made
useful recommendations relating to reducing arrears at stage of investigation and
prosecution of such criminal cases. It has also formulated the directions that should be
given to the existing legal framework to see that there are no impediments created in
the investigation or trial of influential people.

24
V. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF
JUSTICE VISWANATHAN COMMISSION AS REGARDS TO ITS
IMPLEMENTATION OR NOT?

As per the facts and circumstances given in the case the opposition had demanded an inquiry
of the incidents and insisted on setting up a commission. A commission was constituted on
1st
April 2019 by the Ruling Party i.e. Janata Morcha under the auspices of retired judge, Justice
Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into this matter on urgent basis. The Commission
submitted its report before the House on 30th June 2019.

25
 PRAYER

-
Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, that it may graciously be pleased:

 To overrule the order of acquittal and sentence u/s 153A , passed by the
Learned Court below and pass an order in favour of the appellant, and

 Pass any other order it deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good
conscience.
 To allow the appeal.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Place: s/d -

Date: / / 2023 Moot Counsels For Appellants

26