SRMUH SUBJECT MOOT- BA/BBA/LLB 20210
SUBJECT- LAW OF EVIDENCE
Moot Proposition
1. Mr. Sharma, M.D. at Tar. Corp.
2. Used to travel throughout India for business purposes and often came across highly
influential personalities.
3. During one such visit he met one Baba Mataji (a self styled godman).
4. Baba Mataji revealed to him, his powers especially the one to triplicate money and
demonstrated the same by tripling Mr. Sharma’s 1 Lac to 3 Lacs.
5. Blinded by the apparent powers of Baba Mataji he publicly vouched for Baba mataji
and collected money from different people in order to benefit them too.
6. After 4 months Baba Mataji expressed his desire of holding a large scale ceremony,
wherein he would multiply the money 7 times.
7. Mr. Sharma travelled all over India and collected a sum of Rs. 150cr from 1897 people
and deposited the same with Baba Mataji.
8. After 21 days he got intimation from his bank in Mumbai that a sum of Rs. 25cr has
been credited to his account. Believing that the ceremony had worked went to meet
Baba but he found no one over as the place was vacant.
9. After 14 days people started inquiring about their money. He denied of having any
knowledge either of money or of Baba, but at the same time assured them that their
money would be credited to their respective accounts as it has been to his own.
10. After 2 days 1st F.I.R. was registered against him and Baba alleging fraud, conspiracy
and cheating at Mysore, Karnataka. In total 1774 F.I.R. were lodged all over India.
11. Dwarka District Court at Delhi took cognizance of the offences filed in the charge-
sheet by the police against them and was pleased to issue arrest warrants against Mr.
Sharma and Baba Mataji. As police officials were unable to trace the Baba, he could
not be arrested but Mr. Sharma was arrested and was produced in Dwarka District
Court of Delhi and his application for bail was dismissed and was sent to J.C.
12. After 14 days another bail application was moved and at the hearing the complainant
brought the fact that almost 1774 F.I.R’s are pending against the accused persons all
over India and prayed for issuance of directions to the police officials to investigate all
the F.I.R’s so that separate charge-sheet could be filed in each and every case.
13. The Court issued notice to DCP of Economic Offences Wing to show cause why such
directions need not be issued.
14. DCP of EOW recommended the standard procedure of clubbing of all the F.I.R’s into
one single F.I.R. as the offences all formed a part and parcel of the same transaction
and to name all the other complainants in other F.I.R’s as witnesses for the
prosecution.
15. The bail application was dismissed and the order on clubbing of F.I.R’s was reserved.
16. Another bail application was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and was
dismissed accordingly.
17. Several Courts took cognizance of the offence enumerated in different F.I.R’s in their
local jurisdiction and issued arrest and production warrants against him. He was
produced before all the Courts which had issued arrest warrants and his application for
bail was dismissed in all the Courts.
18. Mr. Sharma accordingly moved an application in the Court to be declared as an
insolvent and be accorded a government pleader on account of his financial incapacity
and prayed for exemption from personal appearance.
19. Dwarka District Court at Delhi gave its order on the issue of multiple F.I.R’s and made
a reference to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to get a clear opinion of the High Court on
the subject.
20. On coming to know about the reference to High Court of Delhi Mr. Sharma filed
an
S.L.P in the Supreme Court of India for clubbing of all the cases so filed against him
and also for grant of bail in all such cases so that he was able to defend the cases so
filed against him. On hearing the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor, Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India was pleased to refer this case to a 5 Judges Bench of Supreme
Court of India to deliberate on the subject and finally determine the law and pass
appropriate directions for the same.
Issues before the Court
Issue 1. Whether all the cases against the accused/ petitioner can be clubbed
into one single trial or not?
Issue 2. Whether Mr. Sharma can be held liable for the offences as enumerated in
the charge-sheet or not?
Issue 3. Whether bail should be granted to the accused/ petitioner or not?
