5TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
CLARIFICATIONS
SERIAL
NO.
QUESTIONS
ANSWERS
1.
Whether the question of compliance of Section 50 Cases of prosecution and defence
NDPS Act, 1985 was taken by Balbir Singh in the are mentioned in the proposition in
trial court?
different paragraphs. Necessary
inferences can be drawn to support
your case, wherever required.
2.
The fact sheet mentions that the judgement of
Balbir Singh's previous conviction was not
marked. Does this mean that – It was not marked
"as an exhibit in evidence" by the Special Court or
b) It was not marked by the Judge of the Special
Court
Relevant portion of para 9 of the
proposition mentions what is on
the trial court file. Legal
implications are to be understood
and examined by the Counsels.
Who did not mark the evidence produced of
previous conviction of Balbir Singh?
Whether Balbir Singh's denial to his previous
conviction absolute as a judgment convicting him
has been passed.
3.
Was any application moved, pursuant to which It can be understood that DWs
Mr. Sardul Singh, originally a prosecution witness were called by the defence through
[PW 2] was examined as a defence witness [DW court.
1]?
4.
Which is as to whether Sardul Singh is a
Prosecution witness (PW) or Defence witness
(DW) in the given case. This query has arisen
because the moot proposition states Sardul Singh
both as prosecution witness (Pg 4) as well as
defence witness (Pg 5).
Whether Sardul Singh is PW-2 or DW-1?
It can be assumed that Sardul
Singh was declared hostile by the
prosecution, when he appeared as
PW-2. His statement as DW-1 is
given in Para 16 of the proposition
at p. 5.
What did Sardul Singh say as PW-2 when he was
examined by the prosecution?
5.
Whether the exhibits and witnesses stated in the Refer to proposition. Material
moot proposition are the only evidence tendered evidence is specifically mentioned
or produced by Prosecution/Defence?
in the proposition, which is not
exhaustive.
Permissible
Whether Balbir Singh's denial to his previous assumptions can be made which
conviction absolute as a judgment convicting him
Page 1 of 4
has been passed.
are not vague, out of context or
otherwise contradictory to the
It is not mentioned anywhere whether the specified matter with respect to
consignment was taken to the magistrate, nor there prosecution and defence case.
is anything mentioned about the remand of the
accused. Also nowhere it is discussed anything
about the marking of the consignment by the seal
of the magistrate which is a necessary part of the
proceedings.
There is nowhere mentioned in the moot
proposition
about
the
malkhana/godown.
Malkhana in-charge neither was called as a
witness nor he produced any register containing
the entry & exit of timing of the consignment.
The FSL examiner also has not confirmed the seal
of the sample being sent to him and the
comparison of sample was also not done.
Are the contents of the FSL report open to
interpretation? With reference to its findings and
other aspects of the contraband.
Were the reasons of the search by the police
officer written down? If yes, was it subsequently
conveyed to a superior officer?
Did the police officer conducting the search,
submit himself to the independent witness for
search, prior to searching Balbir Singh?
6.
Where the samples were drawn?
When were the samples drawn from the packets
seized? Were the lots made properly, as required
by law? Were they sealed properly and were the Counsels may draw the logical
required signatures taken? Were they packed, inferences to support their case, if
required.
marked and sealed properly?
Was a test memo prepared?
Was a panchanama made on the spot? Did it
contain signature of Balbir Singh, Officer in
charge, and two independent witnesses?
Was arrest memo prepared?
7.
How much time did Deena Nath take to reach the Prosecution case contends Deena
spot?
Nath's presence at the spot at the
relevant time.
Page 2 of 4
8.
What was the purpose behind setting up the naka?
How and where was the contraband measured and Examine the prosecution case and
draw necessary inferences.
sealed?
9.
Are points (a to g) under Para 7 part of Refer to para 7 of the proposition
Investigation Report under Section 173 (2) Crpc?
where it is stated 'During the
investigation the following facts
got revealed by the investigating
officer'. All these refer to Police
Report.
10.
What are the individual and separate charges Refer to para 1 of the proposition.
against: Satnam Singh, Balbir Singh and Kuldeep
Kaur?
11.
Para 1 states that SS, BS, KK were tried for
offences under section 18 (c) whereas para 8 says
that charges were framed under section 189 (b) . Is
there any typographical error?
There is typographical error in
In the Paragraph 8 of the Factsheet, the second last para 8 of the proposition, 18 (b) be
line mentions that the trial court framed charges read as 18 (c).
against all accused u/s 8 (c) r/w Ss. 18 (b), 25 and
29. In all the other places in the factsheet, the
section is mentioned as Ss. 18 (c).
The query is whether in paragraph 8 too it should
be Ss. 18 (c) or not.
12.
At what time matter was reported to Inspector Logical inference can be drawn
Joginder Singh?
from the matter in the proposition
to support your case.
13.
Is jurisdiction to be argued?
14.
Was any information received beforehand? If yes,
who received the information? Why did the Refer the matter in proposition.
constable stop the car asked Satnam Singh to open Logical inferences can be drawn.
the rear door? If no information was received, who
was acting on personal grounds of belief? Did the
officer in charge record the reasons and send the
same to a superior officer within 72 hours?
15.
Were the fundamental rights of the accused under If you find it contentious in this
Article 22 affected anyhow?
case.
16.
Why was FIR not filed on 8th January itself?
If you find it contentious from the
matter in the proposition.
Page 3 of 4
This is a fact as mentioned in the
proposition.
17.
Whether the denial of search and seizure by Mr. Counsels are to look into legal
Satnam Singh absolute including the fact that implications themselves.
there was no possession at all?
18.
Whether the complaint recorded by Inspector
Joginder Singh with respect to encroachment by
Shamsher Singh, submitted to court, marked or
Refer to defence case in the
not?
proposition as it stands.
Whether defendant's plea that Denna Nath has
been a witness in many cases at the behest of
police, an undisputed fact?
19.
Paragraph 4 of the moot problem. Starting from
the word During Search, talking about this
particular sentence the opium seized from the Para 4 of the proposition mentions
personal belongings of the Balbir Singh is 50 'about' (say approx.) Para 6
grams. Contrast to which in the para 6 where mentions actual weight.
quantities have been weighed separately, the same
quantity has been showed as 80 grams.
20.
We had a query regarding the facts of the case as
to on which date did the trial of Satnam Singh and This is not a contentious issue.
Balbir Singh in sessions court start and end?
Investigation and trial have been
concluded in about one year time.
What was the date on which the two accused were If required assumption can be
convicted. How long have they been in jail after raised conforming to specified
said conviction?
dates in the proposition.
21.
Regarding the addresses of Satnam Singh and As per proposition addresses of
Kuldeep Singh which vary in the fact sheet; so are Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh
the addresse of the two same or different?
are not same.
22.
Considering the moot problem is a version of the Refer to proposition and analyse
stories of the Defence and Prosecution, what are the case of prosecution and the
the undisputed facts of the case?
defence to find out the undisputed
facts.
23.
Will any annexes be provided for the purpose of No other annexures are being
the moot? With reference to the FSL Report, given by organisers. Permissible
Panchnama, Search and Recovery Memo etc.
assumptions can be drawn by the
counsels.
Page 4 of 4