MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK SAMAJ'S,
LAW COLLEGE, NASHIK
Practical Training paper-IV Year 2024-2025
Case Type: Criminal Case (Theft)
Presented Before-
PROF.DR. SANDHYA GADAKH MAM,
FACULTY IN CHARGE
M.V.P. SAMAJ'S LAW COLLEGE, NASHIK
Presented By-
ROHAN SANJAY PATIL
BALLB 5TH , ROLL NO -
STUDENT ADVOCATE FOR THE ACCUSED
MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK SAMAJ’S LAW COLLEGE
NASHIK.
MOOT COURT – MEMORIAL
YEAR 2024-25
Student Name :- ROHAN SANJAY PATIL
Class :- BALLB 5TH YEAR
Presentation :- MOOT COURT – MEMORIAL
:- DR. SANDHYA GADAKH
Presented Before
(Practical Training Faculty In charge)
Case Type :- Criminal Case
Role of Prosecution :- ROHAN SANJAY PATIL
Role of Judge :- PRATHAMESH DATTATRAY WALUNJ
Role of defense :- RAVINDRA NAMDEO PAWAR
Researcher :- SHUBHAM RAJENDRA SONWANE
Principal Student
DR. SANDHYA GADAKH ROHAN SANJAY
PATIL
BALLB 5TH YEAR
IN THE COURT OF SESSION JUDGE, NASHIK,
….AT NASHIK
State Of Maharashtra ……. Complainant
through Indira Nagar Police Station
Verses
Ramesh Ashok Patil ……. Accused
Index
1 Cover Page
2 Table of Content
3 statement of jurisdiction
4 Public prosecutor
5 Vakalatnama
6 List of Document
7 Argument on the behalf of the public prosecutor
8 Prayer
SESSION CASE NO. 244/2020
IN THE COURT OF HOB’BLE SESSION JUDGE, NASHIK,
….AT NASHIK
State Of Maharashtra ……. Complainant
through Indira Nagar Police Station
Verses
Ramesh Ashok Patil ……. Accused
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The present case is file under…
FIR No. I112/2016, U/s. 353, 332, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sec.
21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ,
Meaning Of Sections-:
• IPC 332-:
Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.-- Whoever
voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty
as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public
servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything
done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such
public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• IPC 353-:
Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the
execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that
person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything
done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such
public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• IPC 379-:
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• SEC 21(1) OF THE Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957-:
Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees, or with both.)
• Now, what is Sec 4 of THE Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957-:
Prospecting or mining operations to be under license or lease. —
(1) 1[No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations
in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting license or, as the case may be, of a
mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder]: Provided
that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations
undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a
prospecting license or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act
which is in force at such commencement: 2[Provided further that nothing in this
sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological
Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, 3[the Atomic Minerals Directorate
for Exploration and Research] of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central
Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any State Government (by
whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a
Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act,
1956:] 4[Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining
lease
(Whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name)
in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union Territory
of Goa, Daman and Diu.] 5[(1A) No person shall transport or store or cause to be
transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.]
FACT OF THE CASE
On 26.03.2024 the informant was serving as Talathi of Nashik
in Nashik Talathi Office. On that day, as per the squad established by the
Tahsildar, Nashik, he alongwith other 5 to 6 colleagues, were inspecting the
vehicles on Mumbai Naka to Mumbai Highway Road, Near Rane Nagar
bus stop. At about 7.45 p.m. one truck bearing No. MH-15-BS-2448
(hereinafter referred to as “truck” for short) from Malegaon side loaded with
Sand, which was owned and driven by accused. They have demanded the
permit, royalty receipt and others documents, but he was not having any
documents and therefore, directed to take the truck towards Tahsil Office.
At that time accused had caught hold his collar and by inflecting the kick,
he ran away with truck, which was in his possession and thereby committed
theft of sand. Therefore, the informant lodged the First Information Report
in Indira Nagar Police Station. (Hereinafter referred to as 'FIR' for short).
During the course of investigation, spot panchanama was prepared, seized
the truck and sand under seizure panchanama. Statements of witnesses were
recorded. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet in the Court.
1. The accused is appeared in the case, Court framed charge against
Accused vide Exh.11. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
2. Upon considering evidence on record and after hearing both the parties,
following points arise for court consideration and court were recorded their
findings thereon with reasons as under.
As to Point No. 1 to 3:-
• Talathi and Circle Officer respectively deposed that,
Tahsildar, Nashik formed a squad to prevent illegal
transport of ‘minor minerals’ and they were party to
the said squad along with Circle Officers and
Talathi’s. At about 7.45 p.m. at Ranenagar they
stopped a truck containing sand and was driven by
the accused and on inquiry was not holding relevant
documents requiring to transport the sand. Thus, it
is disclosed that he was illegally transporting the
sand in contravention to the provisions of the
relevant Act and therefore, the accused was
instructed to take the truck towards Tahsil Office,
Nashik. But instead of obeying the directions given
by these Talathi’s he caught hold collar of Talathi
(PW-1) and and kicked him and further fled away
with the truck towards Mumbai.
Therefore, the FIR (Exh.17) was lodged against him.
3. The (PW -2) the spot panch supported these
witnesses on the point of panchnama (Exh.19).
4. The (PW-5) the Investigating Officer corroborated
the version of the prosecution witnesses by stating
that he carried spot panchanama (Exh.19) with the
help of two panch witnesses at the spot of incident
in front of Rane Nagar. He also issued written
orders to 7 Bit Amlardars to trace out the owner of
the truck and the truck itself vide order (Exh.33).
On 26.7.2016 he traced out the accused and
arrested him vide arrest panchanama (Exh.34). On
the same day, he seized the truck under
panchanama (Exh.35). On 28.7.2016 the accused
had unloaded truck at villohli and accordingly,
he carried out seizure panchanama of the 4 Brass
sand vide Exh.37. As it is revealed in his
investigation that accused has committed theft of
sand and also manhandled and caused hurt to the
first informant, therefore, he filed charge-sheet in
the Court.
5. The (PW-4) the panch witness on seizure of truck
and sand did not support the prosecution.
6. From the evidence of (PW-1) and (PW-3) it is
revealed that on 16.6.2016 they were members of
the squad which was arranged by Tahsildar Nashik
to take action against illegal transportation of
minor minerals and as per the directions they
assembled R a n e N a g a r and in a search
operation the truck owned and driven by the
accused was found loaded with sand without any
royalty receipt and permit as per the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for
short). The accused could not show any
documents pertaining to the legal possession of
the sand which was transported at that time by
him. So far as cross-examination of these
witnesses nothing was found to discredit the
credibility of these witnesses. The learned
counsel for accused made an attempt to point out
that the spot of incident is populated area and in
spite of availability of independent witnesses the
investigating officer.
7. On the background of this evidence statement of
accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.
P.C.” for short) were recorded at Exh.41. The
incriminating portion of evidence is confronted
to him, to which the accused denied the
allegations levelled against him and submitted
that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
He submitted that he had not given the bribe
amount to the Tahsildar and therefore, this false
case is filed against him.
VERIFICATION.
I Ramesh Ashok Patil, R/o: - Nashik. Do I hereby
state on solemn affirmation that all aforesaid contents
are true & correct as per my knowledge and belief & In
token of verification I hereby sign below
Nashik. sd/-
Date - ------
----------
Affiant sd/-
----------------
Advocate
VAKALATNAMA
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSION COURT,
……AT NASHIK
BETWEEN
State Of Maharashtra ……. Complainant
through Indira Nagar Police Station
Verses
Ramesh Ashok Patil ……. Accused
I Ramesh Ashok Patil, hereby appoint Ms. Rutuja Suresh
Chavan, as my Advocate to appear & act on my behalf in this said
petition. On my behalf, conduct the same and all the proceedings
connected therewith.
I agree to ratify all the acts done by the aforesaid Advocate in
pursuance of this authority.
Nashik
Date -
Sd/- sd/-
Advocate accused
Arguments Behalf of The Accused.
1. The hostile witness (PW-2) who did not support on
the point of seizure of truck and sand. However, considering
the fact that both the witnesses referred to above have
categorically stated that accused did not cooperate that so far
as seizure of vehicle and did not obey the direction to take
the vehicle to Tahsil office, behaved arrogantly and used
criminal force and assaulted (PW-1) and fled away from the
spot of incident with truck. there is no action taken by
Tahsildar to impose penalty for alleged illegal transportation
of sand and no such evidence brought on record. The
admission given by (PW-1) and (PW-3). However, it is not
case of breach of permit or license or lease granted by the
Government to the accused, but it is a clear case of theft of
sand as the accused did not apply to the state for permission
to transport the sand and therefore, the said contention
cannot be accepted. There is no record to show that the
accused was earlier acquainted with the prosecution
witnesses. Even this fact has specifically come in the
evidence of (PW-1) and therefore, It is matter of record that
the accused is facing charges of Section 353 of IPC is
another criminal case which is pending for trial. that in spite
of availability of independent witnesses at the locality no
independent witness was examined by the prosecution. As it
is action against the illegal transporting of sand and squad
was deputed by the Tahsildar in such circumstances, there is
no requirement of local witnesses. whether known or
unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a
police report. The term 'police report' is defined in Section
2(r) as a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate
under sub section 2 of section 173.
2. Thus, it appears that, any contravention under the Act
is required to be followed by the procedure laid down under
the Act by filing a complaint by the authorized officer of the
Government and the police report specifying the said
contravention cannot be entertained. The cognizance of the
offence stipulated under section 21 is specifically controlled
by section 22 of the Act and the authorized officer of the
government is competent to file a complaint with the
Magistrate to take action against the contravene. The
authorized officer means gazetted officer, who has power to
search and seizure as per section 23(B) of the Act.
In the case in hand, the police have filed charge-sheet
on the basis of the FIR lodged by (PW-1) the Talathi
working with Tahsil Office, Nashik. Therefore, the
question arose as to whether the accused can be
convicted under section 21(1) of the Act as he is
charged. So far as the charge under section 332 of
IPC is concerned, that there is no injury found on
the person of (PW-1) as there is no medical evidence
placed on record by the prosecution.
3. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified this
issue that, in view of the bar containing in section 22 of the
Act, the police are not authorized to investigate the offence
punishable under section 4 r/w 21 of the Act. However, they
are not helpless and are equally equipped to investigate the
cases of theft of sand which covers section 378 and 379 of
the IPC.
4. That, antecedents of the accused are clean and there is
no criminal background of the accused. He is sole bread
earner in his family. Hence, he submitted to show the
leniency.
5. That, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out various
infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
prayed to acquit the accused of the charge.
PRAYER
Hence the accused humbly prays that: -
• I prayed to lesser awarding to punishment against
Accused.
Nashik
Date: - sd/-
Advocate on behalf of Accused.
