Table of Contents

Part-I Preliminary ..................................................................................................... 2

1.1 What is Moot Court? Discuss its importance. .................................................... 2
1.2 Difference between Moot Court, Court Trial & Mock Trial .................................... 3
1.3 Pre-Trial Preparation in Civil Cases ................................................................... 4
1.4 Pre-Trial Preparation in Criminal Cases ............................................................. 5
Part-II - Participation in Trial-Proceeding (Moot Propositions Assigned by College) ........ 7
Moot Proposition-I (Constitutional) ........................................................................ 7
Moot Proposition–II (Civil) ................................................................................... 12
Moot Proposition–III (Criminal) ............................................................................ 16
Part-III Observation of Trial Assigned by Concerned Advocate ................................... 21
(5.1) Criminal Case – I ......................................................................................... 21
5.2 Criminal Case – II .......................................................................................... 23
(5.3) Civil Case – I ............................................................................................... 25
(5.4) Civil Case – II .............................................................................................. 27
Part-IV Pre-trial Preparation (Interview Techniques) .................................................. 29
(6.1) Civil Case – I ............................................................................................... 29
(6.2) Civil Case – II .............................................................................................. 31
(6.3) Criminal Case – I (Murder Charge) ................................................................ 33
(6.4) Criminal Case – II (POCSO Matter)................................................................ 35

1
Part-I Preliminary

1.1 What is Moot Court? Discuss its importance.

Introduction
A Moot Court is a simulated court proceeding, specifically designed for students
pursuing legal education. It mimics the actual functioning of appellate courts where
students act as advocates, presenting arguments before a panel of judges based on
fictional cases, often derived from real constitutional, civil, or criminal law dilemmas.
Mooting generally does not involve examining witnesses or dealing with factual
disputes—it is instead centered on developing legal arguments and interpreting the law.

Nature and Characteristics

• It is primarily appellate in nature—students argue issues of law rather than

fact.

• It involves legal research, drafting memorials, and oral advocacy.

• Moot Courts often simulate the procedure and environment of High Courts or
the Supreme Court.

• Participants must follow formalities such as court language, addressing judges,

and observing court decorum.

Importance of Moot Court

1. Bridges Theory and Practice

Moot Courts serve as a bridge between theoretical knowledge and the practical
application of law. While classroom teaching imparts knowledge of legal
provisions, mooting teaches how to interpret and argue them convincingly.

2. Legal Research Skills

Mooting cultivates rigorous legal research. Students learn how to find
precedents, interpret statutes, and use secondary sources such as
commentaries and law reviews.

3. Analytical and Reasoning Abilities

In order to develop convincing arguments, students must analyze the facts and
law critically. This enhances their reasoning and argumentation skills.

4. Drafting Skills
Memorial writing teaches students how to structure legal documents and
express arguments in a persuasive and organized manner.

2
 5. Oral Advocacy
Moot Court improves public speaking, articulation, and confidence. Students
learn how to address the court respectfully and answer judicial queries
spontaneously.

6. Professional Ethics and Etiquette

Students are exposed to the ethical standards and decorum expected in real
courts. They learn the art of respectful disagreement, advocacy with integrity,
and adherence to procedural norms.

1.2 Difference between Moot Court, Court Trial & Mock Trial
Understanding the difference between Moot Court, Court Trial, and Mock Trial is
essential for appreciating their respective roles in legal education and judicial practice.

Criteria Moot Court Court Trial Mock Trial

Simulated appellate Actual judicial

Nature Simulated trial court
court proceeding

Law students as Judges, lawyers, Students/trainees as all

Participants
counsels parties, witnesses court actors

Involves presentation of
Facts or Focuses on questions Involves both facts
evidence and factual
Law of law and law
disputes

Evidence and Simulated evidence and

Evidence Not considered
witnesses central witnesses used

Academic (within law Judicial courts

Training or educational
Setting schools or (District, High Court,
settings
competitions) Supreme Court)

Practice legal
Resolve real-life legal Simulate a full trial to
Purpose arguments and court
disputes understand legal process
decorum

Illustrative Examples

• A Moot Court competition may involve arguing whether a certain provision

violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

3
 • A Court Trial might deal with the conviction of an accused under IPC after full
trial proceedings.

• A Mock Trial may involve students acting as prosecutor, defense, witnesses, and
jury in a case of theft.

1.3 Pre-Trial Preparation in Civil Cases

Civil litigation begins long before the trial formally commences in court. The
effectiveness of a civil case often hinges on the quality and thoroughness of pre-trial
preparation.

1. Drafting of Pleadings

• Plaint (Order VII of CPC) is the starting point of a civil case.

• The opposite party responds through a Written Statement (Order VIII CPC).

• Often includes set-off, counter-claim, or replication, depending on facts.

2. Filing and Admission of Suit

• The suit must be filed in the appropriate court with requisite court fees and
jurisdiction.

• Once admitted, the suit is registered and numbered.

3. Service of Summons (Order V CPC)

• Essential for the appearance of the defendant. Summons are served personally
or through registered post.

4. Framing of Issues (Order XIV CPC)

• The court identifies the material propositions of law and fact that are in dispute.

5. Discovery and Inspection (Order XI CPC)

• Involves interrogatories, document production, and inspection to facilitate

transparency.

6. Preparation of Witnesses

• Parties identify their witnesses and file affidavits in evidence. Witnesses are
prepped for chief and cross-examination.

7. Interim Applications

• Includes orders for temporary injunctions (Order XXXIX), receivership, etc.

8. ADR Efforts

4
 • Courts may refer the case to mediation or Lok Adalat for settlement under
Section 89 CPC.

9. Final Trial Plan

• Advocates finalize strategies, legal propositions, documentary evidence, and

authorities to rely on.

1.4 Pre-Trial Preparation in Criminal Cases

Criminal law addresses offenses against the State, and pre-trial processes are designed
to protect both the rights of the accused and the public interest.

1. FIR and Police Investigation

• The First Information Report initiates the process under Section 173 BNSS

• The investigation includes site visits, evidence collection, witness interviews,

etc.

2. Arrest and Bail

• The accused may be arrested under Section 35 BNSS

• Bail applications may be filed under Sections 479 to 482 BNSS

3. Filing of Charge Sheet

• Upon conclusion of the investigation, the police submit the final report
under Section 193 BNSS.

• This includes witness statements, forensic results, and charge suggestions.

4. Cognizance by Magistrate

• The Magistrate examines the charge sheet and takes cognizance of the offense
under Section 210 BNSS

5. Framing of Charges

• If sufficient grounds exist, charges are framed, and the accused pleads guilty or
claims trial under Section 250 BNSS.

6. Preparation for Trial

• Prosecution and defense prepare their respective witness lists and documentary
evidence.

• The case diary may be referenced under Section 185 BNSS, and witness
protection measures may be requested.

7. Pre-Trial Conference and Legal Strategy

5
 • Defense counsel prepares cross-examination questions.

• Prosecution ensures the presence of witnesses and filing of supplementary

charges, if required.

8. Legal Aid and Ethical Considerations

• Ensuring compliance with Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution for a fair trial.

• Vulnerable witness protocols may be activated as per applicable guidelines.

6
Part-II - Participation in Trial-Proceeding (Moot
Propositions Assigned by College)
Moot Proposition-I (Constitutional)

2.1 Index of Authorities

A. List of Cases

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

• Landmark case that struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for violating Article
19(1)(a).

2. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

• Asserted the importance of free speech and its indispensable role in

democracy.

3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 788

• Established that freedom of the press is a component of free speech.

4. Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161

• Clarified the State's role in ensuring media access and balance.

5. PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399

• Emphasized citizens’ right to information as part of free speech.

6. Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

• Regulation must not hinder freedom of circulation or expression.

B. Books & Commentaries

1. M.P. Jain – Indian Constitutional Law

2. H.M. Seervai – Constitutional Law of India

3. V.N. Shukla – Constitution of India

4. D.D. Basu – Commentary on the Constitution of India

C. Acts, Statutes, Rules

7
 1. Constitution of Indiana (in pari materia with Indian Constitution)

2. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics

Code) Rules, 2021

3. The Information Technology Act, 2000

4. Press Council Act, 1978

D. Web Sources

• https://indiankanoon.org

• https://prsindia.org

• https://mib.gov.in

• https://legislative.gov.in

• https://scobserver.in

2.2 Statement of Facts

The Parliament of Indiana, a sovereign democratic nation, recently passed

the Digital Media Ethics Code, modelled closely on India’s 2021 rules. The
Code imposes obligations on digital media platforms regarding fact-checking,
prohibiting defamatory content, and upholding journalistic ethics.

‘News Everyday’ (NED), a digital news platform, challenged the Code before
the High Court of United Province, claiming it violates the Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression under the Constitution. It argued the Code is vague,
arbitrary, and gives unchecked power to the Executive.

The High Court upheld the Code's constitutionality. NED refused to comply with
takedown orders issued by the Government and continued publishing content.
The Government initiated proceedings against NED under the Code. NED filed a
writ petition before the Supreme Court of Indiana, seeking relief.

2.3 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana has jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution, which empowers the Court to enforce Fundamental Rights,
including the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)). This
jurisdiction is invoked due to alleged violation of constitutional rights.

8
 2.4 Preliminary Objections

On behalf of the Respondent (State):

1. Res judicata: The High Court has already upheld the validity of the Code.

2. Failure to comply with a judicial order: The petitioner is approaching the

Supreme Court with unclean hands.

3. Alternative remedy: The petitioner had an opportunity to approach the

Appellate Tribunal but chose not to.

4. Academic/ Hypothetical dispute: The relief sought is generic and not linked
to specific identifiable harm.

2.5 Statement of Issues

1. Whether the Digital Media Ethics Code violates the Freedom of Speech
and Expression under Article 19(1)(a)?

2. Whether the Government's order directing NED to take down certain

articles is valid under the said Code?

3. Whether NED has the constitutional right to publish articles defying the
regulatory framework?

2.6 Arguments

2.6.1 On Behalf of the Petitioner (News Everyday)

Issue 1: Violation of Article 19(1)(a)

• The Code imposes prior restraint and amounts to indirect censorship.

• It lacks procedural safeguards, leading to arbitrary decisions by the

Executive.

• The definition of “defamatory” or “unethical” content is vague and lacks

statutory backing.

• Shreya Singhal (2015): Any restriction on speech must fall strictly within
Article 19(2).

• Overbreadth doctrine: Rules are capable of penalizing legitimate dissent

and satire.

9
 • The three-tier mechanism lacks independence, with final oversight resting
with a government-appointed authority.

Issue 2: Validity of the Takedown Order

• No reasoned notice was issued before takedown.

• Violates principles of natural justice—no opportunity for hearing.

• Arbitrary invocation of powers amounts to abuse of discretion.

Issue 3: Right to Publish Content

• Freedom of press is a critical democratic value (Bennett Coleman case).

• Regulatory compliance must not translate into content control.

• NED has a public duty to report matters of concern, even if they are
uncomfortable to the government.

2.6.2 Prayer on Behalf of Petitioner

The Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may:

1. Declare the Digital Media Ethics Code unconstitutional and ultra vires the
Constitution.

2. Quash all takedown orders issued to News Everyday under the Code.

3. Direct the State to refrain from taking coercive steps against NED.

4. Grant any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice.

2.6.3 On Behalf of the Respondent (State of Indiana)

Issue 1: Reasonable Restrictions

• Article 19(2) permits restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, and
defamation.

• The Code is regulatory, not prohibitory. It imposes ethical standards, not

censorship.

• Precedents: Sakal Papers (1962) upheld regulatory mechanisms that do not

curb content.

Issue 2: Valid and Legal Action

• Takedown notice was within statutory authority of the Ministry.

10
 • Emergency situations justify immediate actions, subject to post-facto
challenge.

Issue 3: Accountability of Media Platforms

• Digital platforms enjoy unregulated reach and influence; accountability is a

necessity.

• NED defied court-backed regulation, challenging the rule of law.

• The State has a duty to protect public peace and reputation of

individuals (PUCL case).

2.6.4 Prayer on Behalf of Respondent

The Respondent humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the writ petition filed by NED with exemplary costs.

2. Uphold the constitutional validity of the Digital Media Ethics Code.

3. Confirm that the takedown order issued was lawful, justified, and in the
public interest.

11
Moot Proposition–II (Civil)

3.1 Index of Authorities

A. List of Cases

1. K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, AIR 1998 SC 1297

2. Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, AIR 1964 SC 1810

3. Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656

4. Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor, (1999) 2 SCC 471

5. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, AIR 1954 SC 44

B. Books & Commentaries

1. C.K. Takwani – Civil Procedure

2. Mulla – The Code of Civil Procedure

3. Avtar Singh – Law of Contract and Specific Relief

C. Acts, Statutes, etc.

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872

3. Transfer of Property Act, 1882

D. Web Sources

• www.latestlaws.com

• www.indiankanoon.org

• www.scconline.com

3.2 Statement of Facts

12
 Amit, a businessman from Varanasi, moved to Lucknow in 2000. He rented out
his double-storeyed ancestral house in Varanasi to Ram Prasad at a nominal rent
of ₹500/month.

In 2012, Amit asked for an increase in rent to ₹1000/month, citing inflation and
market rates. Ram Prasad refused. Amit filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes
in July 2012 seeking enhancement of rent. The court, in September 2015, held
that the rent would remain at ₹500/month.

Thereafter, Ram Prasad stopped paying rent altogether. In July 2015, Amit filed a
second suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi, seeking ejectment
and arrears of rent from September 2012 to August 2015 at ₹1000/month. The
Civil Judge ruled in Amit’s favour in August 2015. Ram Prasad filed a revision
petition before the High Court of U.P.

3.3 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Hon’ble High Court of U.P. exercises jurisdiction under Section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to entertain revision petitions against orders of
subordinate courts that affect the merits of the case and result in failure of
justice.

3.4 Preliminary Objections

On behalf of the Appellant (Ram Prasad):

1. The second suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the claim for arrears
and ejectment could have been raised in the first suit.

2. The Civil Judge exercised jurisdiction irregularly by entertaining the ejectment

suit.

3. The respondent is seeking double recovery, violating the principle of res

judicata.

3.5 Statement of Issues

1. Whether the Revision Petition is maintainable under Section 115 of CPC,

1908?

2. Whether the second suit filed by Amit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of
CPC?

13
 3. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to bar the second suit?

4. Whether the judgment of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is legally

sustainable?

3.6 Arguments

3.6.1 On Behalf of Appellant (Ram Prasad)

Issue 1: Maintainability under Section 115 CPC

• The lower court’s decision affects substantial rights.

• The Civil Judge committed material irregularity by passing a decree on

arrears when the rent amount was already adjudicated.

• Suraj Lamp Case: Revision maintainable if subordinate court has exercised

jurisdiction illegally.

Issue 2: Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC

• Amit ought to have claimed ejectment and higher rent in the first suit.

• Failure to include relief in the earlier suit bars a fresh suit on the same cause
of action (Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal).

Issue 3: Res Judicata

• Court of Small Causes had adjudicated the dispute on rent.

• Second suit arises from the same transaction and tenancy.

Issue 4: Abuse of Process

• Filing multiple suits amounts to harassment and multiplicity of proceedings.

• The decree causes prejudice and financial hardship.

3.6.2 Prayer (Appellant)

The Appellant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may:

1. Allow the Revision Petition.

2. Set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Varanasi.

14
 3. Hold the second suit barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.

4. Pass any other order deemed just and proper.

3.6.3 On Behalf of Respondent (Amit)

Issue 1: Maintainability

• The Civil Judge had jurisdiction to entertain a separate suit for

ejectment based on non-payment post-2012.

• Section 115 CPC does not allow reassessment of evidence or facts.

Issue 2: No Bar under Order II Rule 2

• The cause of action for ejectment arose after the first suit.

• First suit was limited to rent enhancement, second suit was based on non-
payment from September 2012.

Issue 3: Res Judicata not applicable

• Matter in the second suit is distinct, relating to new defaults.

• Dnyanoba Bhaurao Case: Every default in rent creates a fresh cause of

action.

Issue 4: Lawful Exercise of Rights

• Landlord has the right to terminate tenancy for continuous default.

• Tenant cannot claim protection after violating basic obligations.

3.6.4 Prayer (Respondent)

The Respondent respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may:

1. Dismiss the Revision Petition as meritless.

2. Uphold the order of the Civil Judge decreeing the suit in favour of the
Respondent.

3. Reinforce the landlord’s right to recover lawful possession and arrears.

4. Grant any other relief deemed fit.

15
Moot Proposition–III (Criminal)
4.1 Index of Authorities

A. List of Cases

1. State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan, AIR 1970 SC 1382

2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

3. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682

4. Vinod Solanki v. Union of India, (2009) 11 SCC 40

5. Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (2010) 4 SCC 653

B. Books & Commentaries

• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal – The Law of Crimes

• K.D. Gaur – Textbook on Indian Penal Code

• Batuk Lal – The Law of Evidence

C. Acts, Statutes, etc.

1. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

D. Web Sources

• www.livelaw.in

• www.latestlaws.com

• www.indiacode.nic.in

• www.scconline.com

4.2 Statement of Facts

John Doe, the Appellant, operated a clinic in the State of Emerald. On 13 October 2015,
officials including the Range Drug Inspector, Joint Director of Health, and Zone Drug
Inspector inspected the clinic. They recovered 29 varieties of allopathic medicines
allegedly stored and meant for sale/distribution without a proper license.

16
The Drug Inspector filed a complaint under Section 200 of the BNSS. Prosecution
presented 6 witnesses, 12 documentary exhibits, and the medicines (Annexure P-1) as
material evidence.

The Trial Court convicted John Doe and sentenced him to:

• 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment + ₹1,00,000 fine under Section 18(c) read with
Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

• 6 months’ simple imprisonment + ₹20,000 fine under Section 18A read with
Section 28, for failure to disclose manufacturer details.

• A separate cost of ₹2,500 under Section 35 for newspaper publication.

On appeal, the Appellate Court held there was no evidence to prove the drugs were
intended for sale. It acquitted the accused under Section 18(c) but confirmed the
conviction under Section 18A. The court also declined the plea to reduce the sentence
under Section 18A.

The matter now comes before the Supreme Court, raising multiple legal questions
regarding possession, distribution, evidentiary sufficiency, and revisional jurisdiction.

4.3 Statement of Jurisdiction

This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and Sections
420 and 422 of the BNSS to adjudicate criminal revision and appeal matters involving
substantial questions of law and miscarriage of justice.

4.4 Preliminary Objections

On Behalf of Respondent (State):

1. The appeal seeks to reopen findings of fact conclusively determined by lower

courts.

2. The Appellant was found in physical possession of unlicensed medicines.

3. Absence of explicit evidence of sale does not negate intent, especially in a clinic
setup.

4. Repeated non-compliance with licensing provisions establishes criminal

liability.

4.5 Statement of Issues

17
 1. Whether possession of unlicensed medicines in a clinic amounts to intent to sell
or distribute under Section 18(c)?

2. Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove distribution/sale

of drugs?

3. Whether mere possession without sale is punishable under Section 18A of the
Act?

4. What is the scope of interference by Revisional Court under Section 420 of the
BNSS?

5. Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 18A should be set aside or
reduced?

4.6 Arguments

4.6.1 On Behalf of Petitioner (John Doe)

Issue 1: Intent to Sell Not Proven

• No patient testimony or prescription record was produced.

• PW5 & PW3 only identified the clinic; they did not witness any sale.

• State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan: Possession alone does not establish intent to
sell unless supported by other circumstantial evidence.

Issue 2: Procedural Gaps in Evidence

• No invoices, receipts, or registers proving commercial activity.

• Section 100 of the BNSS mandates proper search and seizure procedure;
irregularities noted.

Issue 3: Section 18A Violations Unjustified

• Appellant admitted possession but was unaware of the licensing requirement.

• Mens rea (guilty intention) must be established—Vinod Solanki case emphasizes

strict interpretation in penal statutes.

Issue 4: Revisional Court Overreach

• Appellate findings were well-reasoned.

• Revisional Court exceeded its scope by re-evaluating factual determinations.

Issue 5: Sentencing Disproportionate

18
 • Appellant is a first-time offender.

• Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. CBI: Sentencing should balance reformation and

proportionality.

4.6.2 Relief (On Behalf of Petitioner)

1. Set aside conviction under Section 18A.

2. Alternatively, convert imprisonment into fine or probation under Section 401 of

the BNSS.

3. Refund the ₹1,00,000 deposited under Section 27(b)(ii).

4. Pass any other just order in the interest of equity and justice.

4.6.3 On Behalf of Respondent (State)

Issue 1: Offense of Possession Presumed to be for Sale

• Drugs were stored in bulk quantity—indicative of intended distribution.

• The accused ran a clinic, not a household—commercial presumption valid.

Issue 2: Offense under Section 18A Established

• Appellant admitted possession but failed to disclose source/manufacturer.

• Section 18A is strict liability—no need to prove intention.

Issue 3: Public Health Consideration

• Sale of unlicensed drugs jeopardizes patient safety.

• Act imposes a duty of disclosure and licensing, not just on manufacturers but
also on dispensers.

Issue 4: Revisional Court within its Power

• No perversity in findings.

• The scope is narrow but extends to misapplication of law or ignoring evidence.

4.6.4 Relief (On Behalf of Respondent)

1. Dismiss the appeal in its entirety.

2. Uphold conviction under Section 18A and imposed sentence.

19
 3. Direct enhanced surveillance of medical establishments under Drugs Act.

4. Award exemplary costs for judicial time consumed.

20
Part-III Observation of Trial Assigned by Concerned
Advocate

(5.1) Criminal Case – I

Case Title: State v. Nadeem Khan
FIR No.: 123/2021
Police Station: Kotwali Nagar, Ghaziabad
Sections Involved: 302 IPC (Murder), 34 IPC (Common Intention)
Court: Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad
Date of Observation: 12th March 2025
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Shri Y.K. Tyagi, Sessions Judge
Stage: Prosecution Evidence

Brief Background:
The accused, Nadeem Khan, along with two accomplices, was charged with the
murder of a shopkeeper named Rahul Sharma in Ghaziabad. The incident
allegedly occurred during a robbery attempt on 18th September 2021. The
prosecution claimed the murder was committed with premeditated intent using
a sharp-edged weapon.

Court Proceedings Observed:

• The proceedings commenced at 11:05 AM. The courtroom was moderately full,
with police personnel present due to the seriousness of the offense.

• The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Anjali Tomar, called PW-6, a police
constable who was part of the raiding party that arrested the accused.

• The examination-in-chief focused on the recovery of the murder weapon from a

garbage dump near Rajnagar Extension.

• The defense counsel objected on the ground that no public witness

accompanied the police during recovery. However, the judge overruled the

21
 objection citing previous precedents allowing police-only recovery if otherwise
proven.

Key Observations:

• The witness was composed and confident during the examination.

• During cross-examination, defense focused on contradictions in the

constable's diary entries and the sketch of the crime scene.

• The judge maintained decorum, often explaining points of law to the interns and
young advocates present.

• The accused was seated in the dock silently, dressed in civil clothes and guarded
by two constables.

Important Notes:

• The prosecution submitted the FSL report affirming bloodstains on the weapon
matched the deceased’s blood group.

• The defense submitted that no eyewitnesses could identify the accused with
certainty, and CCTV footage was inconclusive.

• The court adjourned the matter for next witness (IO) on 27th March 2025.

Learning Outcome:

• Observed how circumstantial evidence is pivotal in murder trials.

• Understood the importance of cross-examination in weakening the

prosecution’s narrative.

• Realized that judicial demeanor is key in handling emotionally charged criminal

matters.

22
5.2 Criminal Case – II
Case Title: State v. Sanjay Kumar
FIR No.: 267/2022
Police Station: Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad
Sections Involved: 376 IPC, 506 IPC, Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012
Court: Special POCSO Court-II, Ghaziabad
Date of Observation: 20th March 2025
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Renu Bansal, Special Judge (POCSO)
Stage: Cross-examination of the victim’s mother (PW-3)

Brief Background

The accused, Sanjay Kumar, was a neighbour of the 13-year-old victim. The victim
alleged that he sexually assaulted her when she was alone at home in April 2022. An FIR
was lodged by her mother the next morning. The accused was arrested and sent to
judicial custody. The case was fast-tracked under POCSO guidelines.

Court Proceedings Observed

• The courtroom was sealed during testimony as per Section 37 of the POCSO Act.
Only the judge, counsels, victim's family, and court staff were present.

• The victim’s mother (PW-3) was called for cross-examination.

• The defense counsel questioned inconsistencies in her initial statement (Section

180 BNSS) and the FIR timings.

• The mother remained composed and reiterated that she trusted her daughter’s
statement completely.

Key Observations

• The presiding judge was extremely sensitive and attentive, frequently pausing to
ensure the witness understood the questions.

• Psychological support personnel were seated nearby for the comfort of the
witness.

• The defense’s tone was moderate and respectful, keeping in mind POCSO
ethics.

23
 • A video-recorded statement under Section 183 BNSS of the victim was admitted
in evidence.

Important Legal Aspects Noted

• Application of “Best Interest of Child” under Section 3 of the POCSO Rules,

2020.

• Discussions on medical report validity, delay in FIR, and corroboration through

the child’s testimony.

• Debate over whether FSL report delays weakened the prosecution.

Next Hearing

The matter was listed for final arguments on 4th April 2025. The judge noted that the
defense must submit all written arguments within 7 days.

Learning Outcome

• Understood how special laws like POCSO require judicial sensitivity.

• Observed the delicate balance between rights of the accused and victim
protection.

• Gained insight into the impact of procedural adherence on the admissibility of

testimony and evidence.

24
(5.3) Civil Case – I
Case Title: Ajay Bhatia v. Prateek Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Suit No.: 417/2021
Court: Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad
Filed Under: Specific Relief Act, 1963 & Consumer Protection Act (as parallel
claim)
Relief Sought: Possession of flat, interest on delayed possession, damages
Date of Observation: 25th March 2025
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Anjali Yadav, Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Stage: Final Arguments (Plaintiff’s Side)

Brief Background:
The plaintiff, Mr. Ajay Bhatia, booked a 2BHK apartment in the “Prateek Laurel
Heights” housing project, located in Crossings Republik, Ghaziabad, in 2017. As
per the builder-buyer agreement, possession was due by June 2020. Despite full
payment, possession was not granted, nor was any formal extension or
explanation offered. The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking possession, interest at
12% p.a. on the paid amount, and compensation for mental agony.

Court Proceedings Observed:

• The hearing commenced at 10:40 AM. The plaintiff's advocate presented oral
arguments supported by multiple documents:

o Builder-Buyer Agreement

o Payment Receipts

o RTI reply from Ghaziabad Development Authority showing no

construction approval beyond 2020

• The judge asked whether the plaintiff had approached RERA or the Consumer
Forum. The advocate responded that a parallel consumer complaint was
pending but not for possession—only for compensation.

Key Observations:

• The judge was patient, often intervening to seek clarification on the limitation
period and whether “time was of the essence” in the agreement.

25
 • The advocate cited Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954
SC 44, to support the enforceability of specific performance even when time is
not explicitly essential.

• The defense argued force majeure (COVID-related delays), but no

documentation was filed to support the claim.

• The court admitted email communications from the builder promising

possession within “another 2 months” as part of estoppel against delay defense.

Important Legal Points:

• Whether the builder’s ongoing delays amounted to breach of contract under

Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act.

• Applicability of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act for discretionary relief.

• Debate over overlapping jurisdiction between Civil Court and Consumer

Forums.

Next Hearing:
Judge reserved the matter for judgment on 15th April 2025, directing both parties
to file written submissions within one week.

Learning Outcome:

• Understood how consumer and civil remedies can run concurrently.

• Observed practical enforcement of builder-buyer agreements.

• Noted how documentary evidence and communication history can make or

break a case for possession and compensation.

26
(5.4) Civil Case – II
Case Title: Smt. Kusum Lata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Claim Petition No.: MACP/128/2022
Court: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ghaziabad
Claim Amount: ₹25,00,000/-
Date of Observation: 28th March 2025
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Shri Amit Khanna, MACT Judge
Stage: Examination of Petitioner (PW-1) and Medical Witness (PW-2)

Brief Background:
The claimant, Kusum Lata, a widow, filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after her husband died in a road accident on 9th
September 2021 near NH-9, Ghaziabad. He was a passenger in an autorickshaw
which was hit by a rashly driven truck insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. The insurance
company denied liability on grounds of lack of valid driving license and
mechanical fault in the auto.

Court Proceedings Observed:

• The hearing began at 11:15 AM. The claimant, PW-1, was present in a white saree
with her son accompanying her.

• The presiding judge allowed her testimony to be recorded with assistance due to
her emotional state.

• PW-1 deposed about the monthly income of her deceased husband (₹15,000
from private carpentry work) and the financial hardship caused by his sudden
death.

• Medical evidence regarding postmortem report and cause of death was

confirmed by PW-2, a doctor from the District Hospital.

Key Observations:

• The judge was empathetic yet firm, ensuring the insurance counsel’s cross-
examination remained respectful.

• The insurance company’s lawyer highlighted absence of income proof, but the
judge noted that not all self-employed persons have formal documentation.

27
 • PW-2 verified that the death was directly caused by blunt trauma from the
accident.

Legal Points Raised:

• Whether the claimants are entitled to loss of dependency compensation,

funeral expenses, and loss of consortium under Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6
SCC 121.

• Whether contributory negligence could be alleged in absence of eyewitness.

• Whether driving license of truck driver was valid and effective under Section
149(2)(a)(ii) of the M.V. Act.

Next Date of Hearing:

The matter was listed for final arguments on 11th April 2025, with the judge
directing the insurance company to produce the driver’s license verification
report before that.

Learning Outcome:

• Learned how MACT proceedings are quasi-judicial and claimant-friendly.

• Observed how loss of income is established through oral and circumstantial

evidence.

• Understood practical application of judicial precedents like Sarla Verma and

Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh in determining compensation.

28
Part-IV Pre-trial Preparation (Interview Techniques)

(6.1) Civil Case – I

Case Title: Ajay Bhatia v. Prateek Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Location: Office of Advocate Vishal Tripathi, Civil Court, Ghaziabad
Date: 26th March 2025
Client: Ajay Bhatia (Plaintiff)
Advocate: Vishal Tripathi, Advocate, Ghaziabad District Bar Association

Client (Mr. Ajay Bhatia): Namaste, sir. I had booked a flat in 2017 in Crossings Republik.
Till today, the builder hasn’t handed over possession. Can I file a case?

Advocate: Namaste Ajay ji. Yes, you can file a civil suit for specific performance and
possession. Do you have the builder-buyer agreement and payment receipts?

Client: Yes, I have all payment receipts and email correspondences. Possession was
promised by mid-2020.

Advocate: Perfect. That's crucial. We’ll prepare a plaint under the Specific Relief Act
and claim interest for delay, along with damages. Did you send any legal notice?

Client: Not yet. But I did email them multiple times.

Advocate: That’s enough. We’ll attach those as evidence. Also, have you approached
RERA or the Consumer Forum?

Client: No, only consulted my bank to stop EMIs, but they refused.

Advocate: In that case, we can pursue the civil suit in parallel with a consumer
complaint. This increases pressure on the builder.

Client: How long will it take for the court to pass a possession order?

Advocate: It depends, but based on current speed, 1.5 to 2 years for final decree. But
the court may grant an interim direction if urgency is proved.

Client: Should I also request for interest on the money I paid?

Advocate: Yes. We’ll claim 12% p.a. interest from the promised possession date till
actual delivery. And we'll cite judgments like Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram and RERA
guidelines.

Client: Thank you, sir. Please proceed.

29
Advocate: I’ll draft the plaint and affidavit. You’ll need to sign it before a notary. Let’s
meet again in two days with all original documents.

Advocate's Note:
Client has a strong documentary base. Builder has defaulted materially. I will file a
plaint under Sections 10, 20, and 21 of the Specific Relief Act, with citations and interim
prayer.

30
(6.2) Civil Case – II
Case Title: Smt. Kusum Lata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Location: Office of Advocate R.K. Malhotra, MACT Practitioner, Ghaziabad District
Court
Date: 29th March 2025
Client: Smt. Kusum Lata (Wife of deceased)
Advocate: R.K. Malhotra, Senior Advocate, MACT Bench

Client (Mrs. Kusum Lata): Greetings, Advocate Sir. My husband passed away in a road
accident last year. A truck collided with the auto-rickshaw he was in. Can I seek any
assistance?

Advocate: Greetings, ma'am. Yes, you have full rights to file a case in the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. Do you have the FIR and postmortem report?

Client: Yes. The FIR was lodged at Kavi Nagar police station. The postmortem was
conducted at the district hospital. There are also two witnesses.

Advocate: That's good. Now, please tell me what your husband did for a living?

Client: He was a carpenter, working privately. He used to earn around ₹15,000 per
month.

Advocate: Do you have any written proof—receipts or bank entries?

Client: Sir, it was all cash work. But he had worked for many people. We can bring
someone as a witness.

Advocate: Then we'll provide oral evidence along with an affidavit. The court maintains
some flexibility in such cases, especially when the employment is informal.

Client: How long will the entire hearing take, sir?

Advocate: Approximately 1 to 1.5 years. First, a notice will be sent to the Insurance
Company. Then there will be evidence—yours, a medical expert's, and if necessary,
eyewitnesses' as well.

Client: How much compensation can I receive?

Advocate: We'll claim ₹25 lakh, but the final amount will be calculated by the court
using the multiplier method from the Sarla Verma judgment. This includes funeral
expenses, dependency loss, loss of consortium, and more.

Client: Sir, my son is young. His studies have also been disrupted. Can we mention this
as well?

31
Advocate: Absolutely. All this will be mentioned in your affidavit. The judge considers
emotional circumstances.

Client: Sir, please file the petition. Even if I receive something, I can manage the
household.

Advocate: Don't worry. The petition will be ready by tomorrow. You'll need to provide a
passport photo and some ID proofs. We'll file the petition in court by next week.

Advocate's Note:
Widow of deceased has no income proof but FIR and PM report are clear. Petition will be
filed under Section 166 M.V. Act. Oral and circumstantial evidence will be used to
establish loss of dependency. Claim pegged at ₹25 lakhs with multiplier of 16.

32
(6.3) Criminal Case – I (Murder Charge)
Case Title: State v. Nadeem Khan
Location: Office of Advocate Saira Iqbal, Criminal Defense Counsel, Ghaziabad
Sessions Court
Date: 14th March 2025
Client: Nadeem Khan (Accused)
Advocate: Saira Iqbal, Advocate, District Bar Association Ghaziabad

Client-Advocate Interview: Murder Case Defense Strategy

Client (Nadeem Khan): Madam, I've been arrested by the police in connection with a
murder case. I wasn't even present at the scene.

Advocate: Mr. Nadeem, please remain calm. First, could you tell me where you were on
the day the incident occurred?

Client: I was at my uncle's house in Rajnagar that day. The incident happened in Pratap
Vihar.

Advocate: Is there anyone who can confirm your presence in Rajnagar at that time?

Client: Yes, both my aunt and cousin can testify to that.

Advocate: That's helpful. Regarding the knife the police claim to have recovered—
what's your response to that?

Client: That knife isn't mine. The police recovered it without any public witnesses
present.

Advocate: I will certainly highlight the absence of independent public witnesses during
the recovery process in court, as this is a significant procedural lapse.

Client: Is it possible for me to get bail?

Advocate: At this stage, it might be challenging since your name appears in the FIR and
the charge is for murder. I need to review the case diary, witness statements, and the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. If the circumstantial evidence is weak, we can
file a bail application.

Client: The police mentioned there's CCTV footage as well.

Advocate: I will issue a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS to obtain the CCTV footage.
If you're not seen in the footage, it will support your defense.

Client: Madam, what will be our approach in court?

Advocate: Our pre-trial strategy will include:

33
 1. Establishing an Alibi: We'll present testimonies from your family members to
confirm your presence elsewhere during the incident.

2. Identifying Contradictions: We'll scrutinize the police statements and the

charge sheet for inconsistencies.

3. Challenging the Recovery Process: The absence of public witnesses during the
seizure makes the recovery questionable.

4. Highlighting Delays: Any delay in filing the FIR or in your arrest can be used as a
strong point in your defense.

Client: Alright, madam. Please take up my case.

Advocate: Don't worry. We'll begin working on your case immediately and also explore
the possibility of securing bail before the trial commences.

Legal Context:

• Section 94, BNSS: Empowers the court to issue summons for the production of
documents or other items necessary for investigation or trial.

• Section 9, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Addresses the admissibility of

facts that establish the identity of the accused or their presence at a particular
place and time, which is pertinent when asserting an alibi.

• Section 183, BNSS: Outlines the procedure for recording confessions and
statements, ensuring they are made voluntarily and are properly documented.

• Section 48, BNSS: Mandates that the person making an arrest must inform a
relative or friend of the arrested individual about the arrest and the place of
detention.

Advocate’s Note:
Client denies involvement. Will file an application to obtain CCTV footage, call alibi
witnesses, and challenge recovery memo. Bail possible post-FSL stage. Case appears
circumstantial, hence pre-trial preparation is crucial.

34
(6.4) Criminal Case – II (POCSO Matter)
Case Title: State v. Sanjay Kumar
Location: Office of Advocate Anjali Mehta, Criminal Defense Counsel, Ghaziabad
District Court
Date: 25th April 2025
Client: Sanjay Kumar (Accused)
Advocate: Anjali Mehta, Advocate, Ghaziabad District Bar Association

Client Consultation: Sanjay Kumar

Client (Sanjay Kumar): Namaste, madam. I was arrested by the police yesterday. They
allege that I committed an inappropriate act with my neighbor's 12-year-old daughter. I
am completely innocent.

Advocate: Namaste, Mr. Sanjay. Please remain calm. I'm here to assist you. Did the
police inform you under which sections the case has been registered against you?

Client: Yes, they mentioned that the case is registered under the POCSO Act. They took
me before the Judicial Magistrate and asked me to make a statement. I was frightened,
so I remained silent.

Advocate: You did the right thing. Under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, before
recording any confession, the Magistrate must inform you that you are not obligated to
make a statement and that any statement you make can be used as evidence against
you. Since you did not make any statement, no confession has been recorded yet.

Client: Madam, the police said that the girl has given a statement against me. Will her
statement be considered as evidence in court?

Advocate: If the girl's statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section
183 of the BNSS, it can be used as evidence. It's important to note that, especially in
cases involving minors, the statement should be recorded by a female Magistrate or in
the presence of a female officer. Additionally, if the victim is mentally or physically
disabled, the assistance of an interpreter or special educator should be provided, and
the statement should be recorded through audio-video means.

Client: Madam, I am innocent. I was at work that day, accompanied by two colleagues.
Can their statements help me?

Advocate: Absolutely. Their testimonies can establish your alibi. I will coordinate with
them to record their statements and present them in court to support your defense.

Client: Madam, is it possible for me to get bail?

35
Advocate: Obtaining bail in POCSO cases can be challenging. However, if we can
demonstrate that the primary evidence against you is weak, we can file a bail
application. For this, I will need to review the case diary, the girl's statement, and other
relevant evidence.

Client: Madam, is there anything else I should do?

Advocate: Please refrain from making any statements without consulting me. I will
prepare your bail application and gather evidence to substantiate your alibi. Rest
assured, I am fully committed to defending your case.

Note: Under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, specific procedures are outlined for
recording confessions and statements during criminal investigations. These provisions
emphasize the voluntariness of confessions, the rights of the accused, and special
considerations for vulnerable victims, ensuring a fair and just legal process.

Advocate’s Note:
Client denies allegations under POCSO Act. No confession recorded under Section 183
BNSS. Plan to file for bail based on weak prima facie evidence and establish alibi
through witness statements. Will review case diary and victim's statement for further
strategy.

36