Team Code: T-09

BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

JUSTICE CITY
Criminal Appeal No. ___________ of 2014

UNDER SECTION 36-B OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC

SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985

DR.CHARLIE SHINE & ORS.......APPELLANTS

v.

STATE....RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3rd NALSAR-GURCHARAN SINGH TULSI MEMORIAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2014

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................X
STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................XI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.................................................................................................XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS........................................................................................XIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1
I.

THAT THE COURT OF SESSIONS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE INSTANT

MATTER..................................................................................................................................1

II. THAT THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES IN INVESTIGATION...........1

A.

That the credibility of the Investigating Officer is in question..................................2

B.

That the search and seizure were not carried out according to the laid down

procedure............................................................................................................................2
i.

That independent witnesses were not called by Police Officer before carrying out

any search and seizure...................................................................................................2

ii.

That the Sample of seized contraband was drawn in the absence of witnesses.....3

iii.

That the Quantity of the seized contraband sent for the chemical test was not

in accordance with the law.............................................................................................3

C.

That the search conducted at Dr. Charlie Shines house is not in congruity with the

law. ....................................................................................................................................4
III.

THAT

ASIDE.

A.

THE CONVICTIONS ARE UNREASONABLE AND ARE LIABLE TO BE SET

That the Conviction of Dr. Charlie Shine is unreasonable and bad in law.................4
II

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

i.

That Dr. Charlie Shine was taken into custody without any legal justification.....4

ii.

That Dr. Charlie Shine is entitled to the Defence of Entrapment as it recognized

in common law jurisdictions..........................................................................................5

iii.

That the confession made by Dr. Charlie Shine was under oppression and also

not voluntarily................................................................................................................7
iv.

That Dr. Charlie Shine was entitled to face his accuser........................................8

v.

That Dr. Charlie Shines right to free and fair trial has been violated..................9

B.

That Conviction of Mr. H. Jimmy is baseless for the want of evidence..................10

i.

That the contraband recovered during investigation was not in possession of Mr.

H. Jimmy......................................................................................................................10
ii.

That the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence correctly to convict

the Appellant, Mr. H. Jimmy.........................................................................................11

C.
IV.

That The Trial Court erred in implicating Mr. Nicholas Cosca as a co-accused......12
THAT THE

DETENTION OF

APPELLANT NO.1

AND

APPELLANT NO.2

IS ILLEGAL.

14
A.

That the S.428 of The Code is mandatory................................................................14

B.

That the period of detention undergone by the Appellants is to be set off against the

sentence of imprisonment.................................................................................................15
PRAYER................................................................................................................................XV

III

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.......................................................................3, 4, 5, 13
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985................................................2, 4
INDIAN CASES
A. Deivendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 Cri. L.J. 814 (SC)................................................1
Amit Anand Nare v. State of Maharastra, 2006 (19) Criminal CC 25.....................................13
Antony Sauri Pilley v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Cri. L.J. 1502.........................................12
Bhola v. Lachman, AIR 1950 All 475........................................................................................1
Bijoyananda v. Bala Kush, AIR 1953 Ori 249...........................................................................9
Choteylal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) Crimes 246...............................................................4
Gagan Bihari Patnaik v. State of Orissa, 1984 Cri. L.J. NOC 195........................................13
Harijai Singh v. Vijaya Kumar, 1996 (6) SCC 466....................................................................9
Hukamram v. State of Rajasthan , 1982 Cri. L.J. 2341...........................................................13
Inder Sain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 2309...................................................................11
Islam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 ACC 334......................................................................12
Jamuna Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1822.........................................................2
K.C. Dass And N.K. Chatterjee v. State, 1979 Cri. L.J. 362...................................................15
Lakhvinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 Cri. L.J. 4511.....................................................11

IV

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Lalrinfela v. State of Mizoram and Ors. 1982 Cri. L.J. 1793................................................15

Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1892...........................................................................13
Mayadhar Swain and another v. State of Orissa, 91 (2001) CLT 283.....................................11
Mohan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 (2) Crimes 81 (83)............................................4
Mohan Parida v. State; 2001 Cri. L.J. 410..............................................................................11
Mohd. Shafique v. State of Bihar; 1999 (47(2)) BLJR 1529...................................................12
MP Gangadharan v. State, 1989 Cri. L.J. 2455 (Ker-DB).....................................................13
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Y K Kapoor. ILR (1980) 2 Del 886..................................13
Papiah alias Papia v. State, 2004 (2) Crimes 324 (325) (Kant)..............................................14
Prem Lata v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1987 (1) Crimes 322...............................................3
Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) SC 822...........................................................3
Ram Chandra Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985 (1) Crimes 249, 251...........................14
S.S.Chowdhary v. State of UP.,1978 Cri. L.J. 391..................................................................13
Satyendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) EFR 593...................................................1
Sheikh Ashraf Abdul Kader v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1997 Cri. L.J. 303..................1
Sher Singh v. State, 1980, Cri. L.J. N.O.C 64...........................................................................2
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar, 1989 (3) Crimes 608...................................4
State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali,. AIR 2001 SC 2255...........14, 15

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and
Ors. , AIR 1980 SC 52.............................................................................................................10
The State v. Ananta Singh and Others, 1972 Cri. L.J. 1 327.....................................................8
Virma Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) Crimes 418 (420) (Raj)........................................14
FOREIGN CASES
Amato v. The Queen, 69 C.C.C. (2d) 31 (1982).........................................................................5
Attorney General (NSW) v. Dean, (1990) 20 NSWLR 650.................................................9, 10
Attorney General (NSW) v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, [1980] 1 NSWLR 362..........................9
Attorney General (NSW) v. Mirror Newspapers Limited, [1962] NSWR 856...........................9
Attorney General (NSW) v. TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd, (1990) 20 NSWLR 368.....................9
Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd, [1974] AC 273.......................................................9
Attorney-General v. BBC, 1981 AC 303(HL)..........................................................................10
Attorney-General's Reference (No.3 of 2000), [2001] 4 All E.R. 897.......................................5
Barber v. Page, 390 US 719 (1968)...........................................................................................8
Beasley v. State, (Okla Crim) 282 P. 2d 249 (1955)...................................................................6
Bell v. Stewart (1920), 28 CLR 419.........................................................................................10
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v. Wran, (1987) 7 NSWLR 616..................................10
Ex Parte Auld; Re Consolidated Press Ltd, (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 596...................................10
Gisborne Herald Co Ltd v. Solicitor-General,[1995] 3 NZLR 563...........................................9

VI

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)........................................................................5

Hinch v. Attorney General (Vic), (1987) 164 CLR 15...............................................................9
Ibrahim v. The King [1914] A.C. 599........................................................................................7
Illinois v. Allen, 1970 (397) US 337..........................................................................................8
In re Application of Moore, 70 Cal App 483,233 P 805.............................................................6
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)........................................................................5
John D. Pennekamp v. State of Florida, (1946) 328 US 331...................................................10
Kerr v. OSullivan, [1955] SASR 204......................................................................................10
Maxwell v. DPP, (1935) AC 309 (317)......................................................................................9
McAdory v. State, 62 Ala 161 (1878).........................................................................................8
People v. Moran, Cal. 3d 755, 83 Cal. Rptr. 411, 463 P2d 763 (1970).....................................6
R v. Day, [1985] VR 261; Attorney General (NSW)..................................................................9
R v. Looseley, [2001] 4 All E.R. 897.........................................................................................5
R v. Pacini, [1956] VLR 544......................................................................................................9
R v. Saxon, Hadfield and Western Mail Ltd, [1984] WAR 283................................................10
R. v. Australian Broadcasting Corp, [1983] Tas R 161.............................................................9
R. v. Glennon (1992), 173 CLR 592..........................................................................................9
R. v. Loosely ; Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 2000), [2001] I W.L.R. 2060...............6
R. v. Mack, (1988), 44 CCC (3d) 513, 553................................................................................7

VII

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

R. v. Pethig , [1977] 1 N.Z.L.R. 448..........................................................................................5

Reg. v. Bate and Others, 11 Cox C. C. 686................................................................................8
Reg. v. Doheryty, 13 Cox C. C. 23.............................................................................................8
Reg. v. Garner, 1 Den. C. C. 329...............................................................................................8
Reg. v. Gillis, 11 Cox C. C. 69...................................................................................................8
Regina v. Elizabeth Garner,(1848) 1 Denison 329....................................................................7
Regina v. William Baldry, (1852), 2 Denison 430......................................................................7
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v. Willesee (1985) 3 NSWLR 650.......................................10
Rex. v. Warwickshall; (1783) 1 Leach 263.................................................................................7
Ridgeway v. The Queen (1995) 69 A.L.J.R. 484....................................................................5, 7
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958).........................................................................5
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)..........................................................................5
State v. Coss, 12 Wash. 673, 42 Pac. 127 (1895).......................................................................8
Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, (1998) 28 EHRR 101...............................................................6
The Queen v. Thompson [1893] 2 Q.B. 12.................................................................................7
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973)...........................................................................5
Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1969] 2 AC 256............................................11
BOOKS
21 AM. JUR. 2D CRIMINAL LAW 202 (1981)...........................................................................6
VIII

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

DR. J.N. BAROWALIA , COMMENTARY

ON

THE NARCOTIC DRUGS

AND

PSYCHOTROPIC

SUBSTANCES ACT 632 (2d ed, 2011).........................................................................................2

JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, EVIDENCE

IN

TRIALS

AT

COMMON LAW 347 (1st Indian Reprint,

2008)..........................................................................................................................................8
RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, CODE

OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, LexisNexis, Butterworths

Wadhwa, Nagpur......................................................................................................................13
S.P. TYAGI, CRIMINAL TRIAL 722 (3d ed reprint 2008)..........................................................2, 5
OTHER AUTHORITIES
European Convention on Human Rights....................................................................................9
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.................................................................9
Report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure (CMD. 3297, London,
1929)..........................................................................................................................................6
Standing Instruction No. 1/88 , Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi.................................3, 4
Universal Declaration of Human Rights....................................................................................9

IX

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellants, Dr. Charlie Shine, Mr. H. Jimmy and Mr. Nicholas Cosca have preferred an
appeal before The Honble High Court of Judicature at Justice City, pursuant to Section 36-B
of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as under:
36-B. Appeal and revision The High Court may exercise, so far as may be
applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXIX and XXX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), on a High Court, as if a Special Court within
the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying
cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Appellants humbly submit that this Court has the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the
matter and adjudicate accordingly.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 01.01.2010 Dr. Shine lodges an FIR since his laptop, which contained valuable research,
was missing from his research laboratory. Subsequently, Mr. Bulbul Pandey is appointed as
the Investigating Officer. In furtherance of the Investigation, he takes Mr. H. Jimmy into
custody who gives the following statement: Yes I took it, I needed it. I needed it desperately.
If only you knew my position
I.
On recovering the laptop from Mr. H. Jimmys room, it is found that three packets of Hashish
(50 grams each) are hidden in place of the hard disk. On the chemical evaluation of the
sample (10 grams), it is confirmed that the said substance was Hashish. Thereafter, Mr.
Pandey along with Ms. Amy Vinehous, who is his personal friend and also the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, lays a trap for Dr. Shine. During such time, Mr.
Pandey comes into the lab and takes Dr. Shine into custody. While being interrogated, Dr.
Shine confesses that he is a regular Hashish consumer and he maintains a Personal Diary in
which he records the details of his exploits. Meanwhile on 9.1.2010, the surveillance video
captured by Ms. Amy Vinehous gets leaked and goes viral on social media website.
II.
Ms. Kiera Mood appeared in a popular news channel anchored by Mrs. Burkha Batt. She
stated that Dr. Shine has been harassing her and forcing her to sell illegal contraband for a
long time, and she has video graphic evidence to substantiate the same. This video is also
shown on television, though she refused to pursue a case against Dr. Shine. On the same day,
i.e. 10.01.2010, Mr. H. Jimmy files a complaint against Dr. Shine, wherein he states as to how
he was forced to act as delivery boy under the threat of rustication. He also reported that he
used to maintain a word document on his computer with the details of all his transaction but
he had deleted it. The deleted files were retrieved by an accredited data retrieval agency. In

XI

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

furtherance of the complaint, FIR number 2/2010 gets registered against Dr. Shine and he is
arrested. Dr. Shine, during interrogation gives a statement confessing to all the allegations. A
personal diary is recovered which reveals that Dr. Shine regularly sold the Hashish to Mr.
Nicholas Cosca. Next day, Mr. Cosca gives a statement under S. 161 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Pursuant to FIR 1/2010 a Sessions Trial 1/2010 is conducted before the Ld.
Sessions Judge Mr. John Savage, whereas a separate trial ST 2/2010 is conducted for the
extortion case against Dr. Shine as recorded in FIR 2/2010. Both, Dr. Shine and Mr. Jimmy
have been in custody since their arrest.
III.
During the Trial in ST 1/2010, Mr. Nicholas Cosca and Ms. Amy Vinehous stay true to their
statements given earlier. Mr. Bernard Marx turns hostile on examination, Mrs. Bhurkha Batt
seeks to prove the video of Ms. Kiera Mood and Mr. Pandey explains and proves the entire
sequence of events. Mr. H. Jimmy also examines himself as a witness. Ld. Judge Mr. Savage
exercises his powers under S. 319 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and summons
Mr. Nicholas Cosca as an accused on various charges. On 1.1.2014, Dr. Shine, in ST 2/2013,
is convicted for the offence of extortion and sentenced for 3 years. Whereas on 2.1.2014 in
ST 1/2010, Dr. Shine is convicted for offences under S. 20 of The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and is sentenced for 3 years. Mr. Jimmy is convicted for
the charge of the possession of Hashish and is sentenced for 2 years while being acquitted for
the offence of theft. Mr. Cosca is convicted and sentenced for a period of 6 months for the
offence of S. 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with S. 20 of The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
IV.
Hence, an appeal is preferred before this Honble Court by all three accused challenging the
impugned order of the lower court in ST 1/2010.

XII

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I.
II.
III.
IV.

WHETHER THE COURT OF SESSIONS HAD THE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE INSTANT
MATTER?
WHETHER THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES IN THE
INVESTIGATION?
WHETHER THE CONVICTIONS ARE UNREASONABLE AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE?
WHETHER THE DETENTION OF APPELLANT NO.1 AND APPELLANT NO.2 IS
ILLEGAL?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.

WHETHER THE COURT OF SESSIONS HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY THE

INSTANT MATTER?

The Court of Sessions below did not have the jurisdiction to try the present matter as it could
have been tried exclusively by a Special Court pursuant to Section 36-A of The Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985. Thus making the whole trial conducted below
illegal, for want of jurisdiction.
II.

WHETHER THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES IN

INVESTIGATION?

There were numerous discrepancies in the form of irregularities and illegalities in the entire
investigation as conducted by the Investigating Officer, Mr. Bulbul Pandey. Such infirmities
when comprehended, agonizes the entire case of the prosecution. The whole investigation
process was tainted with numerous flaws as the Investigating Officer flouted sacrosanct
provisions laid down in law. The Court below did not take a note of the same, which
otherwise caused a prejudice to the Appellants.

XIII

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

III.

WHETHER THE CONVICTIONS ARE UNREASONABLE AND ARE

LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE?

The Appellants humbly submit that their convictions are unreasonable as the Trial Court erred
in correctly appreciating the evidence that formed the basis of their conviction. Dr. Charlie
Shine, being entitled to the defence of entrapment, his confession being procured by
inducement and his right to face the accuser having been denied, is erroneously convicted by
the Trial Court. Mr. H. Jimmys conviction is bad in law as he never had the conscious
possession of the illegal contraband. The Court of Sessions has also erred in implicating Mr.
Nicholas Cosca as an accused under Section 319 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
IV.

WHETHER THE DETENTION OF APPELLANT NO.1 AND APPELLANT

NO.2 IS ILLEGAL?

The Appellants humbly contend that they are entitled to set off the period of detention against
their conviction on and from the date of their arrest, as enjoined by Section 482 of The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the present case, the period of detention undergone by them
as an under trial prisoner is much more than the sentence awarded on conviction by The
Court of Sessions. Thus, the confinement of the Appellants is illegal.

XIV

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
A.

THAT

THE

COURT

OF

SESSIONS

DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE

INSTANT MATTER.

The Appellants were charged and convicted inter alia under S.20(ii)(B) of The
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter called as The Act) that
provides for rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to ten years therefore they should
have been exclusively tried by the Special Court as laid down under S.36-A of The Act. In the
present case The Court of Sessions tried the Appellants, which is in direct violation of the
provisions of S.36-A It is well settled that on constitution of Special Court within a given
jurisdiction for taking cognizance or conducting a trial of cases of a particular nature, other
courts within that jurisdiction cease to have that power.1 Therefore after the constitution of
the Special Court in Angland, The Court of Sessions has got no jurisdiction to try cases under
the The Act.2 It is respectfully submitted that the respondents cannot take the shelter of the
Transitional Provision enshrined under S.36-D as there are Special Courts duly notified under
S.36(1) of The Act and are existing in the country of Angland. Moreover S.465 of the Code
also cannot be invoked, as it cannot be applied to cure jurisdictional defects, 3 thus making the
trial illegal, for want of jurisdiction.
B.

THAT

THERE WERE IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES IN INVESTIGATION.

The Act lays down that the provisions of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Hereinafter alluded as The Code) shall apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions in this Act, to all the warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under

Satyendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) EFR 593.

Sheikh Ashraf Abdul Kader v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1997 Cri. L.J. 303.

A. Deivendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1998 Cri. L.J. 814 (SC) ; Bhola v. Lachman, AIR 1950 All 475.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

The Act.4 Therefore all the provisions contained in S.100 and S.165 of The Code are
applicable to search and seizure under S.42 of The Act.5
i.

That

the

credibility

of

the

Investigating

Officer

is

in

question.
The courts have thoroughly attached great importance to impartial investigation in a
case.6 Mr. Bulbul Pandey, the Investigating Officer is known for his ruthlessness and
consequently various criminal cases are pending for adjudication against him regarding the
usage of torture during investigation. He admits in his cross-examination before The Court of
Sessions that he had set up Mr. Bernard Marx as a witness, which is corroborated by the
testimony of Mr. Bernard Marx also. The duty of the investigating officer is not merely to
bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a
conviction but to bring out real unvarnished truth. 7 When investigation carried out is not fair
or upright, then no importance can be attached to records of investigation. 8 It is submitted that
investigation carried out in such a way had resulted in prejudice to the Appellants.
ii.

That the search and seizure were not carried out according
to the laid down procedure.

It is respectfully submitted that there were flagrant violations in respect of search, seizure and
arrest made during the investigation of the case.

Section 51, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

DR. J.N. BAROWALIA , COMMENTARY

ON

THE NARCOTIC DRUGS

(2d ed, 2011).

6

Sher Singh v. State, 1980, Cri. L.J. N.O.C 64.

Jamuna Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1822.

S.P. TYAGI, CRIMINAL TRIAL 722 (3d ed reprint 2008).

AND

PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT 632

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

1. That independent witnesses were not called by Police Officer

before carrying out any search and seizure.

The Code lays down that it is the duty of the Police Officer making search and seizure to
call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality. 9 Investigating
Officer, Mr. Bulbul Pandey, while seizing the laptop and the contraband contained therein
from Mr. H. Jimmys house, did not comply with the said statutory requirement, thereby
making the case of the prosecution doubtful. In such a case, it is the duty of the court to
scrutinize the evidence regarding the search very carefully.10 The Courts will be extremely
reluctant to uphold the prosecution case, in such a scenario. 11 The act of recovering the
retrieved data from Mr. H. Jimmys confiscated computer also did not comply with the
provisions12 of The Code.
2. That the Sample of seized contraband was drawn in the
absence of witnesses.
The sample from the seized contraband should have been drawn in the presence of search
witnesses and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered. 13 It is pertinent to
state that, neither Mr. H. Jimmy nor any witness was present during the recovery and seizure
of the said illegal contraband.

Section 100(4), The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10

Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1963) SC 822.

11

Prem Lata v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1987 (1) Crimes 322.

12

Section 100, 165, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

13

Standing Instruction No. 1/88 , Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3.

That the Quantity of the seized contraband sent for the

chemical test was not in accordance with the law.

The quantity to be drawn from the seized contraband should have been 24 grams for
chemical test14 and not 10 grams, as was done in the present case. Thereafter the Investigating
Officer sealed the sample of the seized contraband separately and the contraband gets
deposited in the Police Malkhana. S.55 of The Act, which envisages that, the Officer-inCharge of the police station after affixing his seal shall take charge of and keep in safe
custody all articles seized under The Act and the contravention of the said provision causes
prejudice and brought about miscarriage of justice.15
The qualitative test of the seized contraband was also not conducted as per the statutory
requirement, as the Forensics Lab report does not specify the purity of the Hashish recovered,
which is otherwise mandatory.16
iii.

That the search conducted at Dr. Charlie Shines house is not

in congruity with the law.
It is respectfully submitted that the search conducted at Dr. Charlie Shines house was

also in violation of the provisions17 of the law as it was conducted after sunset (i.e., at 23:00
Hours) and in the absence of the panchas. Moreover, where the evidence adduced in the case
does not show that there was any compliance of S.57 of The Act, as to whether within next 48
hours of arrest and seizure making a full report of particulars of such arrest or seizure to the

14

Id.

15

Choteylal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) Crimes 246.

16

supra note 13.

17

Section 42, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 100,165, The Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

immediate official superiors has been done, it has been held that there is an infirmity in the
case.18 If these provisions are not strictly complied with, the prosecution must fail.19
C.

THAT

THE CONVICTIONS ARE UNREASONABLE AND ARE LIABLE TO BE SET

ASIDE.

A. That the Conviction of Dr. Charlie Shine is unreasonable and

bad in law.
i. That Dr. Charlie Shine was taken into custody without any legal justification.

The provisions20 of The Code gives discretion to the Police Officers in the matters of arrest,
however the Police Officer is not expected to act mechanically as arrest is in the nature of
encroachment on the personal liberty.21 Mr. Bulbul Pandey makes a premature arrest in the
present instance as there was no evidence against Dr. Shine at the time of taking him into
custody.
2. That Dr. Charlie Shine is entitled to the Defence of
Entrapment as it recognized in common law jurisdictions.
Entrapment occurs when an agent of the State, usually a law enforcement officer or a
controlled informer causes someone to commit an offence in order that he should be
prosecuted.22 The defence of entrapment is accepted in several common law jurisdictions. In

18

Mohan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 (2) Crimes 81 (83).

19

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar, 1989 (3) Crimes 608 (615-616).

20

Section 41, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

21

Supra note 8, at 734.

22

Attorney-General's Reference (No.3 of 2000), [2001] 4 All E.R. 897; Lord Hoffman in R v. Looseley, [2001] 4

All E.R. 897 (Conjoined Appeal).

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

the United States, entrapment operates as a substantive defence. 23The Supreme Court of
Canada also recognized the same in The Amato case24. It has also been affirmed by The High
Court of Australia25 and The Supreme Court of New Zealand 26. Hence, in the light of the
above cited cases, the Democratic Republic of Angland, being a common law nation with
nascent jurisprudence should also recognize and uphold the defence of entrapment.

o That Ms. Amy Vinehous acted as an agent of The

State.
An agent provocateur is a person who entices another to commit an express breach of the law
which he would not otherwise have committed and then proceeds or informs against him in
respect of such offences.27 It may consist of a person other than an officer in the form of a
private person28 or a private detective29. The same concept has been upheld in Beasly v.
State30 and People v. Moran31. In the instant case, Investigation Officer, Mr. Bulbul Pandey,
asked for the help of Ms. Amy Vinehous to entrap him and carry out the whole operation
against Dr. Charlie Shine.
o That the operation was carried out with Mala fide
Intentions.
23

Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932); Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958); United States

v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973); Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976); Jacobson v. United States, 503
U.S. 540 (1992) .
24

Amato v. The Queen, 69 C.C.C. (2d) 31 (1982).

25

Ridgeway v. The Queen, (1995) 69 A.L.J.R. 484.

26

R. v. Pethig , [1977] 1 N.Z.L.R. 448.

27

Report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure (CMD. 3297, London, 1929).

28

21 AM. JUR. 2D CRIMINAL LAW 202 (1981).

29

In re Application of Moore, 70 Cal App 483,233 P 805.

30

Beasley v. State, (Okla Crim) 282 P. 2d 249 (1955).

31

People v. Moran, Cal. 3d 755, 83 Cal. Rptr. 411, 463 P2d 763 (1970).

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

The operation of entrapment should be bona fide and not as a part of malicious vendetta
against an individual or a group of individuals. 32 The same had been recognized in Teixeira
de Castro v. Portugal 33. Investigation officer, Mr. Bulbul Pandey used to despise criminals
stating I despise criminals, especially those that deal in modern evils that debase the human
nature. Moreover, Mr. Pandey divulged during his cross examination that he planted a
witness namely Mr. Bernard Marx to falsely implicate Mr. H. Jimmy without any cause. Such
instances do not signify any bona fide intention on the part of the Investigation Officer.
o That the operation was not in consonance with the
ordinary temptation and stratagems that are likely to
be encountered in the course of criminal activity.

In Ridgeway v. The Queen34, Mchugh J had stated that the inducement should be
consistent with the ordinary temptations and stratagem that are likely to be encountered in the
course of criminal activity. Moreover, Lamer J in R v. Mack35 had pointed out that it is
unacceptable to prey on the weakness of human nature to create a crime for an improper
purpose. In the instant case, Ms. Amy Vinehous, who was acting as an agent, made amorous
advances towards Dr. Shine to entice him into smoking. It is unforeseeable that such acts of
amorous advances are a part of the usual course of transaction of such a criminal activity.
Also the advances made by Ms. Amy Vinehous are made in order to prey on the weakness of
human nature to induce him into committing the alleged crime. Therefore, the whole
operation is tainted with inconsistencies as the techniques which were employed to induce the
commission of an offence did not enjoy the sanction of law.
32

R. v. Loosely ; Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 2000), [2001] I W.L.R. 2060.

33

Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, (1998) 28 EHRR 101.

34

Supra note 25.

35

R. v. Mack, (1988), 44 CCC (3d) 513, 553.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3. That the confession made by Dr. Charlie Shine was under

oppression and also not voluntarily.
It was held in Regina v. William Baldry36 , The Queen v. Thompson37 and Ibrahim v. The
King38 that a confession will be admissible in evidence only when it is perfectly voluntary;
and without any inducement in the nature of a promise or of a threat held out by a person in
authority. The law does not presume such statements to be untrue, but from the danger of
receiving such evidence, judges have thought that it is better to reject such evidence(s) for the
due administration of justice39. In Regina v. Elizabeth Garner40, it was held that telling the
accused it would be better for her to speak the truth amounts to inducement and the
confession given upon this statement is not voluntary and cannot be admitted. It has been
repeatedly held that use of such an expression as it is better to tell the truth by a person in
authority excludes evidence of a confession. The same was affirmed in Reg. v. Gillis41, Reg.
v. Garner42, Reg. v. Bate and Others43, Reg. v. Doherty44. The slightest of fear is enough to
exclude the confession as not voluntarily made.45 In the instant case the burden of proof is
upon the prosecution to prove that the confession obtained was voluntary and not improperly
induced by Mr. Bulbul Pandey. In the light of the cases cited above, it can reasonably be
inferred that if the confession is prompted by any such above mentioned statements, the same
shall be excluded on the ground that it is not voluntary. In this case, during interrogation, Dr.
36

Regina v. William Baldry, (1852), 2 Denison 430.

37

The Queen v. Thompson [1893] 2 Q.B. 12.

38

Ibrahim v. The King [1914] A.C. 599.

39

Rex. v. Warwickshall; (1783) 1 Leach 263.

40

Regina v. Elizabeth Garner,(1848) 1 Denison 329.

41

Reg. v. Gillis, 11 Cox C. C. 69.

42

Reg. v. Garner, 1 Den. C. C. 329.

43

Reg. v. Bate and Others, 11 Cox C. C. 686.

44

Reg. v. Doheryty, 13 Cox C. C. 23.

45

McAdory v. State, 62 Ala 161 (1878); State v. Coss, 12 Wash. 673, 42 Pac. 127 (1895); JOHN HENRY
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW 347 (1st Indian Reprint, 2008).

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Charlie Shine expressly made use of the words Please dont hurt me by which it can be
inferred and deduced that the confession so allegedly made was induced by threat and was
not voluntary in nature.
4. That Dr. Charlie Shine was entitled to face his accuser.
The right to confrontation is basically a trial right.46 It affords accused individuals the
chance to cross-examine witnesses at trial and to have the jury observe their demeanor at
that time.47 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted
with the witnesses against him. 48 The abovementioned cases have also been referred in The
State v. Ananta Singh and Others49. In the instant case, The Court of Sessions had denied Dr.
Charlie Shine the right to face his accuser, who made an allegation stating that she had video
graphic evidence which depicted Dr. Charlie Shine forcing her to sell illegal contrabands.
5. That Dr. Charlie Shines right to free and fair trial has been
violated.
The right to a fair trial provides for full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal. It has been enshrined in declarations 50, several
conventions51, covenants52 and cases53. The press does not enjoy any special right either of
freedom of expression in comparison to that of an ordinary citizen or any special privilege or
immunity from the law.54 Media has to act in a responsible manner and be fair, informed and

46

Barber v. Page, 390 US 719 (1968). at 725.

47

Id.

48

Illinois v. Allen, 1970 (397) US 337.

49

The State v. Ananta Singh and Others, 1972 Cri. L.J. 1 327.

50

Article 10, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

51

Article 6, European Convention on Human Rights.

52

Article 15, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

53

R. v. Glennon (1992), 173 CLR 592.

54

Harijai Singh v. Vijaya Kumar, 1996 (6) SCC 466.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

must not make prejudiced attempts to influence the public in a negative way. 55 The press do
not enjoy any special right of freedom of expression. The same was upheld in The Orissa
High Court Judgment.56 Publications that include (a) photographs of the accused where
identity is an issue,57 (b) Content suggestive of the accuseds previous criminal activity being
relevant to the present case,58 (c) suggestions that the accused has confessed to committing
the crime in question,59 (d) suggestions that the accused is guilty or innocent of a crime, or
that the accused should convict or acquit the accused, 60(e) comments which make references
to the character or credibility of the accused or a witness,61 are all considered to be prejudicial
to pending criminal proceeding, and as such liable for contempt of court. Either way, there
may be a serious interference with the proper administration of justice.62
Moreover judicial officers are also susceptible to influence by media publicity in the same
way as jurors and witnesses. 63 The same principle was also mentioned in number of cases. 64
The common law Right of Presumption of Innocence has been violated by the media. In the
instant case, the controversial surveillance video captured by Ms. Amy Vinehous, the

55

Attorney General v. Times Newspaper Ltd, [1974] AC 273 at 300 (Lord Reid).

56

Bijoyananda v. Bala Kush, AIR 1953 Ori 249.

57

R. v. Australian Broadcasting Corp, [1983] Tas R 161; R v. Pacini, [1956] VLR 544; Attorney General

(NSW) v. Mirror Newspapers Limited, [1962] NSWR 856.

58

Gisborne Herald Co Ltd v. Solicitor-General,[1995] 3 NZLR 563; Hinch v. Attorney General (Vic), (1987)

164 CLR 15; Maxwell v. DPP, (1935) AC 309 (317).

59

Attorney General (NSW) v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd, [1980] 1 NSWLR 362; Attorney General (NSW) v.

Dean, (1990) 20 NSWLR 650; R v. Day, [1985] VR 261; Attorney General (NSW) v. TCN Channel Nine Pty
Ltd, (1990) 20 NSWLR 368.
60

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v. Wran, (1987) 7 NSWLR 616; Attorney General (NSW) v. Dean,

(1990) 20 NSWLR 650.

61

R v. Saxon, Hadfield and Western Mail Ltd, [1984] WAR 283; Registrar of the Court of Appeal v. Willesee

(1985) 3 NSWLR 650.

62

Ex Parte Auld; Re Consolidated Press Ltd, (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 596.

63

Bell v. Stewart (1920), 28 CLR 419 at 433 (Isaacs and1 Rich JJ); Kerr v. OSullivan, [1955] SASR 204.

64

Id; Attorney-General v. BBC, 1981 AC 303(HL); John D. Pennekamp v. State of Florida, (1946) 328 US 331.

10

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

unauthenticated video graphic evidence relating to Ms. Kiera Mood was flashed repeatedly
on television making the accused appear guilty, thereby forming a bias against the accused.
ii.

That Conviction of Mr. H. Jimmy is baseless for the want of

evidence.
i. That the contraband recovered during investigation was not in possession of Mr. H.
Jimmy.
The term possession is not defined anywhere in The Act. It may carry different

meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible to work out a completely

logical and precise definition of Possession, uniformly applicable to all situations in the
context of all statutes.65 There are 3 requisites of possession. First, there must be actual or
potential physical control. Secondly, physical control is not possession, unless accompanied
by an intention. Thirdly, the possibility and intention must be visible or evidenced by external
signs, for if the thing shows no signs of being under the control of anyone, it is not
possessed.66 It was held that possession meant conscious possession and that a person can be
held responsible for something which was found on the premises, which are in his control but
in such a case there should be something in the circumstances that the said person had the
knowledge of the existence of the contraband on the said premises. 67 In the instance case
Hashish was recovered from the laptop which belonged to Dr. Charlie Shine and it was found
at the place where the hard disk is stored. There is no evidence at all (direct or indirect) to
prove that the contraband was in his conscious possession. As the term Possession in

65

Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Ors. , AIR 1980

SC 52.
66

House of Lords in Warner v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1969] 2 AC 256 ; Inder Sain v. State of

Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 2309.

67

Lakhvinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1996 Cri. L.J. 4511.

11

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

context with the The Act has been strictly construed by various courts, in the present case it
can no way be said that the Appellant was in possession of the contraband.
2. That the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence
correctly to convict the Appellant, Mr. H. Jimmy.
The prosecution must establish by cogent and reliable evidence that the accused was in
exclusive possession of the contraband article and when the evidence was lacking to this
effect the accused is entitled to acquittal.68 In the present case there is nothing to show that the
laptop from which the contraband was recovered was in exclusive possession of Mr. H.
Jimmy. Mr. Snoop Daug, Jimmys roommate also had an access to the said room from where
the laptop was allegedly recovered.
Moreover, the said illegal contraband was never obtained from the laptop in the presence of
the Appellant as he was not taken to the said location during search and seizure of the same.
If conscious possession of the contraband by the accused is not proved or search and seizure
of the contraband is not made in presence of the independent witness, conviction order cannot
be passed.69 Whenever a person is held up for possession of any offending articles it must be
in his exclusive possession.

70

It is essential to establish particularly is serious cases that the

accused and he alone was the person from whose possession the contraband was recovered,
mere presence of accused on the premises is not good enough. 71 The entire credibility of the
investigating agency shatters when such witness facing prosecution under The Act is treated
as independent, creditable and reliable witness.72 Here, the examination of Mr. Nicholas
Cosca raises such doubts on the credibility of the investigation agency. The fact that all the
68

Mayadhar Swain and another v. State of Orissa, 91 (2001) CLT 283; Mohan Parida v. State; 2001 Cri. L.J.

410.
69

Mohd. Shafique v. State of Bihar; 1999 (47(2)) BLJR 1529.

70

Islam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 ACC 334.

71

Antony Sauri Pilley v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 Cri. L.J. 1502.

72

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar, 2000 (4) MPHT 189.

12

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

provisions of S.100 & S.165 of The Code has been complied with during search and seizure
is also in question. Therefore the possibility of the Investigating officer himself planting the
illegal contraband in the laptop cannot be ruled out. In cases of grave offences like the one at
hand, search and seizure form an integral part in the process of investigation. The
incriminating materials recovered go a long way in connecting the accused in the case and in
case of any discrepancy therein, should lead to disastrous consequences against the
prosecution. Moreover, S.35 of The Act, which imposes a reverse burden on the accused,
cannot be invoked as the Appellant was not found to be in possession of the contraband.
iii.

That The Trial Court erred in implicating Mr. Nicholas Cosca

as a co-accused.
S.319 of The Code empowers the Court to proceed against any person not shown or

mentioned as accused if it appears from evidence that such person has committed an
offence.73 The proceedings against such person shall commence de novo, and the witness
must be reheard.74 If the trial is not commenced afresh and witnesses re-heard it is vitiated
and curable.75 In the present case there is nothing on record to show that the trial was
conducted de novo after implication Mr. Nicholas Cosca, thereby causing prejudice to the
Appellant. It has vitally affected the rights of the accused. The power under S.319 of The
Code is extraordinary and is to be used sparingly and only when there are compelling reasons
for acting under the section76. The word evidence in S.319 of The Code means evidence on
record and the power under the section cannot be exercised with reference to police papers. 77

73

RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, CODE

OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa,

Nagpur, 1279 (19th ed 2011).

74

Section 319, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

75

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Y K Kapoor. ILR (1980) 2 Del 886.

76

Gagan Bihari Patnaik v. State of Orissa, 1984 Cri. L.J. NOC 195. ; Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, AIR 2006 SC

1892.
77

Hukamram v. State of Rajasthan , 1982 Cri. L.J. 2341.

13

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

The statement made by Mr. Nicholas Cosca before the court was not sufficient enough to
arraigned him as a co-accused under this section 78, as he cannot be implicated on his own
incriminating statement made by him in the capacity of a prosecution witness without any
independent material on record.79 Moreover the order of the Sessions Judge summoning the
petitioner on the basis of a police statement recorded under S.161 of The Code is
unsustainable.80 From the testimony of a single witness it cannot be said that there is prima
facie material against other persons satisfying the ingredients of S.319 of The Code. 81 In the
present instant, the only evidence against Mr. Nicholas Cosca was the uncorroborated
statement of the accused, Mr. H. Jimmy , which does not even constitute evidence in the strict
sense.82 As there are no prima facie compelling reasons for impleading the Appellant as
accused, the order of The Court of Sessions is bad in law.
D.

THAT

THE DETENTION OF

APPELLANT NO.1

AND

APPELLANT NO.2

ILLEGAL.
A. That the S.428 of The Code is mandatory.
S.428 of The Code provides for setting off the period of detention undergone by the
accused against the sentence/imprisonment finally awarded on conviction. An absolute
right for set off is granted under this Section for the period of pre conviction detention. 83
The provision of S.428 of The Code is mandatory.84 To avail the right incorporated in the
abovementioned provision, two conditions need to be satisfied; firstly, that during the
stage of investigation, inquiry or trial of a particular case the prisoner should have been in
78

S.S.Chowdhary v. State of UP,1978 Cri. L.J. 391.

79

MP Gangadharan v. State, 1989 Cri. L.J. 2455 (Ker-DB).

80

Amit Anand Nare v. State of Maharastra, 2006 (19) Criminal CC 25.

81

Supra note, 75.

82

Ram Chandra Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1985 (1) Crimes 249, 251 (All).

83

Virma Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 (1) Crimes 418 (420) (Raj).

84

Papiah alias Papia v. State, 2004 (2) Crimes 324 (325) (Kant).

14

IS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

jail at least for a certain period and secondly that the accused should have been sentenced
to a term of imprisonment in that case.85 In the instant case, Dr. Charlie Shine was taken
into custody on 7th of January 2010 in connection with Sessions Trial 1/2010. While being
in such detention as an under trial prisoner, he was formally arrested again on the charge
of extortion under S.383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 10 th of January 2010 pursuant
to an FIR lodged against him vide FIR bearing number 2/2010. The case concerning the
offence of extortion against Dr. Charlie Shine was tried separately as Sessions Trial
2/2010. On 1st of January 2014, Dr. Charlie Shine was convicted in Sessions Trial 2/2010
for the offence of extortion and was sentenced for three years. Thereafter, on 2nd of January
2014, he was again convicted for offences under S.20 of The Act and was sentenced for
three years.
ii.

That the period of detention undergone by the Appellants is

to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment.
The moot question in the present case involves computation of the period of detention

required to be set off when an accused is convicted in more than one case and the periods of
detention during the investigation, inquiry and trial of one case overlaps the other. In the
present case, Dr. Charlie Shine has been convicted in two trials for 3 years each. The Honble
Delhi High Court affirmed this rule of law, where the lordships held that the principle of
S.428 of The Code is to be applied in all cases whether the accused is convicted in one case
or many, whether simultaneously or at different times. 86 The Honble Guwahati High Court
has also principally laid down that, S.428 of The Code does not inhibit an accused to obtain
set off in the second or the subsequent cases for the overlapping period of detention in those
cases and if an accused is arrested and detained in two cases, the computation for the period

85

State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali,. AIR 2001 SC 2255.

86

K.C. Dass And N.K. Chatterjee v. State, 1979 Cri. L.J. 362.

15

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

of set off must be done separately and he shall be entitled to claim set off the period in both
the cases.87 The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. v.
Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali88 subsequently upheld both the above decisions. In the instant case,
Dr. Charlie Shine is in custody since 7 th of January 2010 pertaining to first trial, ST 1/2010
and since 10th of January 2010 pertaining to the second trial, ST 2/2010. Therefore, applying
the above mentioned provision, he is entitled to the benefit of set off from the respective dates
in both the cases and as the period of detention as an under trial is more than the sentence
awarded in the present instance, Dr. Charlie Shines detention is now against the letter and
spirit of law.

87

Lalrinfela v. State of Mizoram and Ors. 1982 Cri. L.J. 1793.

88

Supra note, 87.

16

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited; it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before The Honble Court that it may be
pleased to:
1. Allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of The Court of Sessions
pertaining to ST 01/2010.
2. Acquit the Appellants of all the charges.
3. Direct the Superintendent of Jail to set at liberty Appellant No. 1 & Appellant No. 2
with immediate effect.
And pass any other order or grant any other relief in favor of the Appellants, which this
Honorable Court may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: 25 of January, 2014

Place: Justice City, Angland
Sd/Counsels for the Appellants

XV