2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 TEAM

TeamCODE:TC
Code: TC P26 P26

2nd IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDIA,

WRIT PETITION NO. _____ UNDER ARTICLE 32

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. SANJEEV WALIA……………………. ……………………………PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF BELLY AND ORS. ………………………..……………….RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT…………………………………………………………………2

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………...3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………..…...4

• CASES CITED……………………………………………....………….4

• BOOKS REFERRED………………………………………...…………5

• STATUTES AND RULES………………………………...……………5

• ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS…………………..……………5

• LEGAL DATABASE…………………………………….……………..5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….6

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………….……………..……...10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………..…………………………….…………11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………..……………………….…..…..12

PRAYER………………………………………………………..…………………….....25

2|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

❖ PMLA Prevention of Money Laundering Act

❖ POCA Prevention of Corruption Act

❖ COZ Constitution of Zindia

❖ GOZ Government of Zindia

❖ UK United Kingdoms

❖ HC High Court

❖ Hon’ble Honorable

❖ i.e., That is

❖ CBI Central Bureau of Investigation

❖ PKL Party King Airlines

❖ u/s Under Section

❖ SC Supreme Court

❖ ML Money Laundering

❖ vs/v. Versus

❖ AIR All India Reporter

❖ PA Pecuniary Advantage

❖ ED Enforcement Directorate

3|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFFERED:
❖ United states v. Rauscher, (1886) 119 US 407

❖ Daya Singh Lahoria v. Inion of India and Others, 2001 4 SCC 516

❖ United States v. Paroutian,319 F.2d 661 (2d Cir. 1963)

❖ Fiocconi v. Attorney General,339 F. Supp. 1242 (1972)

❖ Shankar Dastidar v. Banjula Dastidar,Appeal (civil) 5609 of 2006

❖ State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi & Anr.,1973 AIR 908

❖ Bhagirath Kanoria & Ors. v. State of MP & Ors.,1984 4 SCC 222

❖ Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,(2017) 9 SCC 641

❖ State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy,1977 AIR 1489

❖ Bikram Chatterji & Ors v. Union of India & Ors,MANU/SC/0947/2019,

❖ Joseph Salvaraj v. State of Gujarat,AIR 2011 SC 2258

❖ Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal,AIR 1954 SC 724

❖ Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab,1967 AIR 752 1967 SCR (1) 211

❖ Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation,2003(1) SCR 119

❖ PV Narishma Rao v. State (CBI/SPE),1998 8 SCC (Jour) 1

❖ RS Nayak v. AR Antulay,1988 AIR 1531 1988 SCR Supl.

❖ B. Rama Raj v. Union of India,(1997) 6 SCC 241

❖ Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India,1979 AIR 1803 1980 SCR (1) 61

❖ Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India,(2018) 11 SCC 1

❖ State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries,2004 28 SC

❖ Jolly George Verghese vs Bank of Cochin,1980 AIR 470 1980 SCR (2) 913

4|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

STATUTES AND RULES:-

❖ Criminal Procedural Code, 1973

❖ Indian Penal Code, 1860

❖ Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

❖ Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

❖ Constitution of India, 1950

ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS:-

❖ Jacques Sammelman, “New York Law Journal vol. 239 no.-2” 2008

❖ Cambridge University Press, “Reflection on the nature of the speciality principle in

extradition relations” 2016

❖ School of Law, Case Western Reserve University, “The Doctrine of Speciality: A

Traditional Approach to the standing vol. 29 issue 2” 1997

BOOKS REFERRED:-

❖ DD Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (Lexis Nexis, 9th edition, 2021)
❖ KD Gaur,Textbook on Indian Penal Code(2020-21)
❖ Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,The Code of Criminal Procedure(23rd ed.,2020)
❖ Dr. Shamsuddin,The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(2nd ed.,2021)
❖ Malik’s,Commentary on Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(6th ed.,2023)

LEGAL DATABASE:-

❖ Manupatra

❖ SCC Online

❖ Indian Kanoon

5|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION OF CERTIORARI BEFORE THIS
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZINDIA UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 19501

1 INDIA CONST. Art. 32.

6|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

STATEMENT OF FACTS

❖ The Union of Zindia is a South Asian democratic country; the criminal laws and government
organisations are pari materia with the laws of India. The term economic offences relate to
fraud, counterfeiting, money-laundering and tax evasion among other.

❖ Mr. Sanjeev Walia is the chairman of United Spirits and continues to serve as a chairman of
United Liquor Group and deals in various sectors of economy such as beverage, alcohol,
aviation, infrastructure, real estate and fertilizer. Sanjeev Walia was born to humble parents, he
never decided to settle for a quiet life like his father. On the other hand, he had soaring ambitions
and a desire to exceed them. His journey started with United Liquor Group.

❖ The company initially managed to increase the overall turnover by around 64% in the year
1998-1999. He was already living a lifestyle of that of kings and was known as the “King of
parties” which eventually became the tagline of Party King his own brand for liquor and
aviation.

❖ Later on in the year 2005, Mr. Walia launched his new airline company, Party King Airlines to
further diversify his business which later on become the cause of his downfall. Party King
Airlines was launched at the peak of his career when he was living a lifestyle that most people
can even afford.

❖ The Party King Airlines later on started to face economic struggles from the year 2012. In order
to continue his business, he took heavy loans from various banks and as a consequence of the
same he took loans from 17 banks in the country. The loan sanctioned to Party King Airlines
amounts to total of Rs 9,000 crores. Mr. Sanjeev Walia was the member of Rajya Sabha when
he applied for these loans and abused his power as a MP to the Rajya Sabha for obtaining the
loans.

❖ Even after multiple financial years Mr. Sanjeev was unable to repay the principal amount as a

7|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

result of which the consortium of banks decided to file a court case against him for failure to
repay the loan, fraud and criminal conspiracy.

❖ The reasons cited for the failure of airlines which Mr. Walia cited were high fuel prices and
recission of 2008. Mr. Sanjeev Walia, later on, flew to the UK without facing any friction of
the authorities. The Belly High Court in 2017 ordered him several times to appear before the
court but he ignored the order. As a consequence of the same, the court charged him with the
contempt of court, fraud and ordered the government for his extradition.

❖ The Government of Zindia appealed in the court of London for Sanjeev Walia’s extradition.
The court in London opined that appellant will not get a fair trial in Zindia due to political
influence and pressure and found the extradition request by Zindian Government against the
European convention on human rights because of poor prison conditions in Zindia to which the
government of Zindia ordered to improve the conditions and facilities in prisons.

❖ The Government of Zindia assured a fair trial, compliance of human rights and an extradition
agreement was derived between Zindia and UK, where Sanjeev had been staying. Zindia had
assured UK that Mr. Sanjeev Walia would not be charged for additional charges other than the
charges on which the extradition was made that are the charges of Criminal Conspiracy, Fraud
and charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act respectively. Furthermore, it was decided
that Mr. Walia would not be imprisoned for more than 10 years.

❖ Later on, CBI charged Walia under Section120B (Criminal Conspiracy), Section420 (Cheating)
of the Zindian Penal Code, 1860 and Section13(1)(d) and Section13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. In addition to the above ED also charged Mr. Walia under Section3 and
Section4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and also stated that Party King
Airlines diverted at least amount of Rs 3,547 crore of the loans that it received.

❖ Furthermore, the Belly High Court found Mr. Sanjeev Walia on all the above counts and
sentenced him for 15 years of imprisonment while ordering the attachment of his properties to
satisfy the loan amount of Rs 9,000 Crores.

8|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

❖ The Counsel on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Walia filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Zindia.

❖ Now the petition lies before this hon’ble court.

9|Page
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. THE BELLY HIGH COURT WRONGLY FRAMED THE CHARGES AND

SANJEEV CANNOT BE TRIED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY
LAUNDERING ACT (PMLA), 2002 AS PER THE EXTRADITION AGREEMENT.
THEY HAVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT
ALSO DISHONORS THE EXTRADITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF UK AND THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

1.1.WHETHER THE CHARGES FRAMED BY BELLY HIGH COURT AND

TRIAL OF SANJEEV UNDER THE MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 IS
VALID?

1.2.WHETHER THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT GIVEN BY BELLY HIGH

COURT IS REASONABLE?

2. WHETHER SANJEEV WALIA IS INNOCENT AGAINST ALL OTHER CHARGES

WHICH HAS BEEN VALIDLY FRAMED?

3. WHETHER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID?

10 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE BELLY HIGH COURT WRONGLY FRAMED THE CHARGES AND

SANJEEV CANNOT BE TRIED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY
LAUNDERING ACT (PMLA), 2002 AS PER THE EXTRADITION AGREEMENT.
THEY HAVE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT
ALSO DISHONORS THE EXTRADITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF UK AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ZINDIA.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that as per the extradition agreement
Sanjeev cannot be charged under any offence other than the offence for which he is
extradited or which are mentioned in extradition agreement and Section 21 of Indian
Extradition Act also states the same that is rule of specialty. But The Belly High Court
charged him for Money Laundering and sentenced him for 15 years that is clear violation
of extradition agreement and section 21 of IEA.

2. WHETHER MR. SANJEEV IS INNOCENT AGAINST ALL OTHER CHARGES

FRAMED AGAINST HIM?

No misrepresentation, fraud, cheating has been done by Sanjeev Walia, and Loan was taken
for business purpose and Airline industry needs huge capital to run properly. But due to
some reasons Party-King Airlines could not repay the loan amount. There are some reasons:
High fuel prices and recession of 2008.

3. WHETHER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT,2002 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID?
There are so many provisions which have been challenged in this case are:
➢ Section 5
➢ Section 24: Burden of proof on Accused
➢ Section 50: Statement by Accused to ED
➢ Bail provisions

11 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. The Belly High Court wrongly framed the charges and Sanjeev cannot be tried under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 as per the Extradition Agreement.
They have further argued that the quantum of punishment also dishonors the extradition
agreement between the government of UK and the Government of Zindia.

1.1. Whether the charges framed by Belly High Court and trial of Sanjeev under the
Prevention of money laundering act, 2002 is valid?
1.1.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as per the Extradition
Agreement signed between India and UK and as essential element of the agreement,
Sanjeev would not be prosecuted for any offence in addition of his charges of fraud,
criminal Conspiracy and Prevention of Corruption Act. Noticeably, United
Kingdom’s Court said that in case India breached its undertaking, UK could terminate
the extradition and it further emphasized that under the “principle of specialty”,
Sanjeev should be tried only for the alleged offences mentioned in the extradition
agreement request. And the Indian Government unconditionally agreed to all the
abovementioned extradition conditions and then Sanjeev was brought back to India.

1.1.2. However, ED has charged Sanjeev under section 32 and sec. 43 of prevention of
money laundering Act, 2002 and the Belly High court also charged him for the same
in addition of other charges. That’s why, Belly High court breached the terms of
extradition agreement and international law.

1.1.3. Moreover, it also violated the section 21 4 of the Extradition Act, 1962 that talks
about principal of specialty.
[Sec. 21. Accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by foreign State not
to be tried for certain offences.—Whenever any person accused or convicted of an

2 Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2003 (§ 3, Act 15 of 2003).

3 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 (§ 4, Act 15 of 2003).
4 Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (§ 21, Act 34 of 1962).

12 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

offence, which, if committed in India would be an extradition offence, is surrendered

or returned by a foreign State, such person shall not, until he has been restored or
has had an opportunity of returning to that State, be tried in India for an offence other
than-
(a) the extradition offence in relation to which he has surrendered or returned; or
(b) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his
surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his
surrender or return could not be lawfully made; or
(c) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent.] 5

1.1.4. Section 21 clearly states that a person cannot be tried and convicted for any offence
other than the extradition offence in relation to which he has extradited or in respect
of which the foreign state has given its consent. Hence, the conviction of Sanjeev by
Belly High Court under this act is invalid and contrary to law. Hence, the Belly High
Court’s decision is arbitrary and unlawful.

Case laws:

1.1.5. In the case of United States vs Rauscher6, Mr. Rauscher, the second mate of a U.S.
ship, murdered a crew member while at sea. Subsequently Mr. Rauscher fled to Great
Britain. At the request of the United States, Great Britain apprehended and extradited
Mr. Rauscher to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of
New York on the charge of murder. Pursuant to an indictment a jury convicted Mr.
Rauscher for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, and not the charge of murder
for which Great Britain had extradited him. Mr. Rauscher argued that his conviction
on the charge of cruel and unusual punishment constituted a violation of the
extradition treaty because the extradition agreement charged him only with murder.
The judges sitting in the circuit court differed in opinion as to the proper resolution
of the conflict and thus referred the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court

5 Indian Extradition Act, 1962 (§ 21, Act 34 of 1962)

6 United States v. Rauscher, (1886) 119 US 407.

13 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

prefaced 'its analysis by noting that while a treaty is contractual by nature, it is also
"the supreme law of the land" under article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Following
this reasoning, the Court equated treaties with legislative acts. The Court then found
that when treaty provisions affect the rights of individuals, courts have the power to
enforce and uphold those rights. Exploring the nature of extradition, the Court next
found that the intent behind extradition treaties reflects the principle of specialty. The
Court equated a violation of this principle with a violation of the relator's rights under
the treaty. Thus, the Court held that Mr. Rauscher had acquired a right to exemption
from trial upon charges not listed in the extradition agreement without the opportunity
of first returning to Great Britain." The Supreme Court remedied the violation of the
specialty doctrine by stripping the trial court of personal jurisdiction over Mr.
Rauscher to try him for the unextradited charge of cruel and unusual punishment.

1.1.6. In the case of Daya Singh Lahoria vs Union of India and others 7, the supreme
court had explained the doctrine of specialty as follows:
“The doctrine of specialty is yet another established rule of international law relates
to extradition. Thus, when a person is extradited for a particular crime, he can be
tried only for that crime. If the requesting deems it desirable to try the extradited
fugitive for some other crime committed before his extradition, the fugitive has to
be brought to the status quo ante, in the sense he has to be returned first to the state
which granted the extradition and a fresh extradition has to be requested for the latter
crime. The Indian extradition act makes a specific provision to that effect. In view
of section 21 of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 an extradited fugitive cannot be
tried in India for any offence other than the one for which he has been extradited
unless he has been restored to or has had an opportunity to return to the state which
surrendered him. The doctrine of specialty is in fact a corollary to the doctrine of
double criminality and the aforesaid doctrine if premised on the assumption that
whenever a state uses its formal process to surrender a person to another state for a
specific charge, the requesting state shall carry out its intended purpose of

7 Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India & Others, 2001 4 SCC 516.

14 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

prosecuting or punishing the offender for the offence charged in its request for
extradition and none other.

1.1.7. It is submitted that the non-observance of the “principle of speciality” requires two
orders of consequences in the ambit of international relations – first, the mistrust on
a state that does not have a credible and reliable behavior in its international relations,
and second, a discredit of the judicial power that is used by the institution of
extradition in duplicity manner, generating doubts on the administration of justice.
Therefore, the petitioner pleads before the Hon’ble Court to remove the additional
charges and declare the order of High Court invalid.

1.2. Whether the quantum of punishment given by Belly High Court is reasonable?

1.2.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as per the terms of extradition
agreement between UK and India, it was clearly written that Sanjeev would not be
imprisoned for more than 10 years.

1.2.2. However, the Belly High Court sentenced Mr. Sanjeev for 15 years which is clear
violation of extradition agreement and international law.

1.2.3. Furthermore, it was the solemn sovereign assurance by Union of India to UK which
was an assurance that the punishment for more than 10 years would not be awarded,
and if any other punishment was awarded by Indian Courts, the government would
exercise it’s powers under article 72 of the Constitution8 of India and bring down the
punishment consistent with the solemn sovereign assurance given to UK. And the
government is bound to perform it’s duty by restricting the sentence in conformity
with the assurance given to UK courts.

1.2.4. And it was opined that the rule of traditional estoppel doctrine as well as
international public law ( for instance, with respect to principle of reciprocity)

8
INDIA CONST. Art. 72.

15 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

required that the solemn sovereign guarantees provided by sovereign states are
respected in future. The consequences of failure to do so gave UK the right to timely
demand devolution of the person to be extradited through diplomatic or judicial
channel.

1.2.5. In the case of Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari vs. The State of Maharashtra,9
the appellant was charged under several offences but he ran out of India to Portugal.
And India has requested many times to Portugal to send Abu Salem to India and for
this purpose an extradition agreement was signed between India and Portugal and one
of the terms of the said agreement was that he will not be sentenced for more than 25
years . But the trial court of Mumbai sentenced him for life imprisonment after that
he approached the Supreme Court against this order. the Supreme Court held that the
judiciary is not bound to follow the extradition agreement because signing an
extradition agreement is an executive act. That’s why the executive is bound to follow
the conditions of extradition agreement and it is the duty of the executive to restrict
the sentence in conformity with the assurance given to Purtegese court. And the
Supreme Court ordered the central government to advice the president of India for
exercise of his powers under article 72 of Constitution, and to release the appellant in
terms of the national commitment as well as the principle based on comity of courts
after the appellant completing 25 years of sentence. In view thereof, the necessary
papers be forwarded within a month of the period of completion of 25 years sentence
of the appellant.

1.2.6. Now, in the above case what happened at last the Supreme Court ordered to
executive to commute the sentence after completion of 25 years so basically the
Supreme Court is also ordering to follow the terms of extradition agreement in any
means so the purpose of punishing Abu Salem by trial court has been failed

9 Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578, 2022 SCC Online SC 852.

16 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

automatically. That’s why the sentence should be reasonable and courts should
respect the assurance given by Union of India to other states.

1.2.7. That's why, here in the petitioner is not challenging the power of Belly High Court
to pass the sentence of 15 years but the sentence should be reasonable and fulfill the
purpose of extradition.

1.2.8. Hence, it is submitted that the extradition agreement should be followed at any cost.
And the order should be passed by supreme Court to executive to commute the
sentence after completion of 10 years of sentence of petitioner.

17 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

2. WHETHER SANJEEV WALIA IS INNOCENT AGAINST ALL OTHER CHARGES

WHICH HAS BEEN VALIDLY FRAMED?

2.1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the other charges levied against
Sanjeev Walia by CBI are as follows:
• Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120B10,
• Cheating u/s 42011, and
• u/s 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act12.

2.2. It is alleged that Sanjeev has done fraud and cheating along with some bank officials to
obtain the loan from various banks, as per the Moot preposition the Loan was taken in the
corporate capacity not in the personal capacity and while taking loan various banks had
declared Sanjeev bankrupt but not Party-King Airlines and he did not give any bribe to
bank officials to obtain loan. These are mere allegations against him, The reputation of
Party-King Airlines was very good in market and banks had the full trust on Party-King
Airlines that’s why banks gave the loan to Part-King Airlines. And Party-King Airlines has
followed all the valid procedure to obtain the loan from the banks and no evidences has
been provided to show that Sanjeev has done cheating and corruption. And how it can be
said that he used his position of MP and has given bribe to bank officials. Just because Mr.
Walia was the MP at that time when he obtained the loan, it does not prove he has done
any corruption.

2.3. No misrepresentation, fraud, cheating and corruption have been done by Sanjeev Walia,
and Loan was taken for business purpose only and Airline industry needs huge capital to
run properly. But due to some reasons Party-King Airlines could not repay the loan amount.

10 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (§ 120(B), Act 45 of 1860).

11 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (§ 420, Act 45 of 1860).
12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(§ 13(1(d)),13(2), Act 49 of 1988).

18 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

2.4. There are some reasons:

I. High fuel prices: Jet fuel prices have been rising steadily as a result of rising
demand and competition among airlines, making it impossible for PKA to cover its
fuel consumption costs. Due to their failure to pay their fuel bills, various vendors
filed a lawsuit with the Bangalore High Court against PKA, including BPC. Their
fuel expenses had climbed by about 70%. (Bharat Petroleum Corporation). Fuel
costs, economic pressures, and competition have forced airlines into bankruptcy and
reorganization to address accumulated losses, mounting debt, and labor issues
II. Recession of 2008: The airline industry has also been impacted by the recent
economic recession, which has reduced the public’s ability to purchase air travel.
Consequently, the demand for air travel has dropped as consumers experienced the
impact of growing unemployment and rising expenses for basic necessities affected
by petroleum prices (e.g., commuting, utilities, and food). The report of Aviation
Industry performance ( A review of the Aviation Industry, 2008-2011) is being
attached as ANNEXURE 1.
III. Acquisition of Air Deccan: The third was the acquisition of Air Deccan, a low-cost
carrier. Even though PKA inherited all of Air Deccan's aircraft and market, the latter
also inherited its losses. In 2007, PKA merged with Air Deccan, a low-cost airline
with affordable rates, replacing Kingfisher, a high-cost airline renowned for its
elegance. Since Air Deccan had already established itself in the market, Party-King
reasoned that this would improve the company's financial position. Another factor
was that Party-King lacked Air Deccan's five years of domestic experience, whereas
Party-King did. In order to obtain an international license for aircraft, one must
possess five years of domestic experience. In 2008, Party-King Red was introduced
following the merger with Air Deccan.
IV. Expansion in the international arena: Another choice that impacted PKA's
efficiency was the quick launch of abroad services. After acquiring Air Deccan,
PKA entered the international market. This entrée into a big market would have been
fantastic after consolidating the domestic service, which had by then grabbed a
significant portion of the Indian market. PKA’s international attempt was a dismal
failure. That was always going to be the way it was going to be. In the rough waters

19 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

of international competition, how could a man with no domestic airline experience

succeed? Emirates and Etihad, for example, dominated the international skies and
had a loyal following. It was too difficult for the nascent PKA to break its monopoly,
and it failed.
V. Switching from premium class airline to low budget segment: PKA grew well-
known as a premium airline that catered to the needs of high-ranking business
executives and politicians. Over a short period, it steadily built up its brand.
However, it lost its luster when it entered the low-cost market. The low-cost market
was not easy to navigate. The market was dominated by Indigo, SpiceJet, and other
competitors. It was difficult, especially in the domestic market. The competition was
strong, and PKA's aspirations of making a quick buck were dashed. PKA's service
deteriorated over time, and consumers shifted their loyalties to other airlines.
VI. Lack of stability at the upper class of management: A lack of continuity at the
top of an organization is another element leading to PKA's downfall and dissolution.
PKA's owner, as previously said, was a newcomer to the aviation industry, and the
CEO was in charge of the company's direction. No CEO, on the other hand, stayed
at PKA for more than a year. If PKA had hired an experienced CEO like Gopinath
of Air Deccan and kept him for the full five-year term, things might have turned out
differently. Walia's commercial interests, aside from breweries and PKA, were
numerous and desperate. Because the breweries were handled by qualified
employees, his booze company boomed. PKA, on the other hand, did not have the
same luck

2.5. it is humbly submitted that the abovementioned reasons cause the Party-King Airline’s
downfall. And in such a difficult situation it is not possible for the Party-King to repay the
loan. So, it is only the matter of non-repayment of loan. And only civil suit could be
maintained. Criminal proceedings against Sanjeev Walia cannot be maintained because
there are no enough evidences to proof the commission of offence by Sanjeev Walia.

2.6. Hence, it is humbly submitted that Sanjeev Walia is innocent for all other charges.

20 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

3. WHETHER THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONAL VALID?

3.1. The following points and provisions of PMLA,2002 which are being challenged here
are:-

3.1.1. Bail is the rule, jail is the exception?

➢ Section 45 of PMLA 2002 requires compliance with twin conditions in order to
secure bail for a person accused under PMLA 2002. The two conditions are-
❖ The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application
for such release; and
❖ There should be reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty
of any such offence and that the accused is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.13
➢ The petitioner in the given case contends that the aforementioned twin conditions
provided to secure bail are unconstitutional as being violative of Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India. 14 The two conditions of bail impose an irrefutable
burden on the accused. When a statute provides that bail cannot be issued if there
is a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty, the moment the charges are framed,
the accused loses his chance to seek bail. This clearly breaches the fundamental law
of criminal jurisprudence which is Bail is the rule, jail is the exception and further
imposes an absolute restriction on the Fundamental Right to Life guaranteed under
Article 21. This is so much so that the provision of bail as per Section 45 of the
PMLA 2002 is far more rigorous compared to the provisions of bail under Cr.P.C.
Further, Section 45 also violates the right guaranteed under Article 14 15 of the

13 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 (§ 45,Act 15 of 2003)

14 INDIA CONST. art. 14 & 21.
15 INDIA CONST. Art. 14.

21 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

Constitution of India as it institutes distinct laws for an essentially same act or

omission. It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court has previously declared
the alleged twin conditions unconstitutional in Nikesh Tarachand Shah versus the
Union of India in the year 2017. However, the Union Government then bought an
amendment to the said Section 45 in the year 2018 and the ED claimed the
amendment was brought in line with the judgement given in the Nikesh Tarachand
Shah case. The petitioners claimed that the said amendment undermined the Nikesh
Tarachand Shah Judgement, and re-established the original twin conditions.

3.1.2. Search and Seizure- A necessary step or another way of misuse of power?
➢ Section 17 of the 2002 Act permits only the Director or any other officer not
below the rank of Deputy Director authorized by him to exercise the power of
search and seizure on the basis of information in his possession and having reason
to believe that any person has committed some act which constitutes money-
laundering or is in possession of proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering,
including the records and property relating money-laundering.16
➢ The petitioner raises his objections against the set procedure under the 2002 Act.
They went on to state that Section 17 of the 2002 Act does not provide for
magisterial supervision which is an essential tenet of the criminal procedure and
endows immense powers to the investigative authority which increases the scope
of misuse of such power. The challenge is that, unlike the Cr.P.C., no safeguards
for search and seizure have been envisaged under PMLA and that such wide
power is being exercised without a formal FIR registered or complaint filed in
respect of the scheduled offence. The provision is, thus, unconstitutional and in
violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3.1.3. Provision of arrest or unlimited power to ED?

➢ Section 19 of the 2002 Act envisages that the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant
Director, or any other officer authorised on this behalf by the Central

16 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 ( § 17, Act 15 of 2003)

22 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

Government, if has material in his possession giving rise to a reason to believe

that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act, he
may arrest such person.
➢ The petitioners contended that under Section 19 of the 2002 Act, unequivocal
power of arrest without a warrant has been conferred.17

3.1.4. Burden of proof or is it Reverse burden of proof?

➢ Section 24 of the 2002 Act states that when a person is accused of having
committed the offence under Section 3, the burden of proving that proceeds of crime
are untainted property shall be on the accused himself. 18
➢ The petitioner contends that Section 24 of the 2002 Act reverses the burden of proof
and falls foul of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3.1.5. Statement or Self-incrimination. What is it?

➢ Section 50 of the 2002 Act states that the proceedings by the ED officials for
summons, production of documents and giving evidence are in the nature of judicial
proceedings akin and attracts Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.19
➢ The petitioner contends that any statements made under Section 50 of the 2002 Act
that form the basis for the Director to proceed with the attachment of property are
violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Further, Sections 63(b) and
63(c) of the PMLA20 impose penalties for the non-production of documents and for
not signing the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA which clearly violates
the safeguards against self-incrimination.

3.1.6. ECIR equivalent to FIR?

17 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 ( § 19, Act 15 of 2003)

18 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 ( § 24, Act 15 of 2003).

19 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 ( § 50, Act 15 of 2003).
20 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 ( § 63, Act 15 of 2003)

23 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

➢ The petitioner contends that every FIR registered by an officer under Section 154 of
the Cr.P.C.is required to be forwarded to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, however, this
procedure is not being followed in ECIR cases. In the present times, the ED can
arrest an individual on the basis of an ECIR without informing him of its contents,
which is clearly an arbitrary action and also violates the right of an individual
guaranteed by the COI. The right of an accused to get a copy of the First Information
Report at the early stage and the right to gain knowledge of the allegations levied is
an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence it violates Article
21 of Constitution of India.

3.1.7. Are PMLA Amendments (2015,2016,2018,2019) which introduced many of the

challenged provisions unconstitutional because they were enacted through
money bills?
➢ The PMLA Amendments do not constitute financial matters. Their enactment
through money bills violates the principle of bicameralism, a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
➢ Thus, it is submitted that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 is
unconstitutional.

24 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
 2ND IILM NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023 Team Code: TC P26

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS OF THE CASE, ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO:

1. Declare the charges framed by Belly High Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 against Mr. Sanjeev Walia are invalid/wrong; and
2. Declare the quantum of punishment of 15 years is unreasonable; or pass an appropriate writ
in the form of order/direction to the central government to commute the sentence of 15 years
on completion of 10 years by using article 72 of Indian Constitution; or
3. Declare Sanjeev Walia innocent against all other charges framed; and
4. Quash the order of Belly High Court; and
5. Declare the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as unconstitutional; or
6. Pass any other orders/directions that may be deemed appropriate in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

Place: ________

Date: _________

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

25 | P a g e
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER